Madras High Court
M/S Orchid Designs Pvt Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Commercial ... on 11 April, 2023
2023:MHC:1826
Rev Aplw No. 48 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.04.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
Rev.Aplw No. 48 of 2023
M/s Orchid Designs Pvt Ltd.,
Rep. by its Director,.
No.3, Muthial Reddy Street,
Alandur, Chennai - 600 016. .. Petitioner
vs
1.The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk,
Chennai - 600 005.
2.The Assistant Commissioner (CT),
Alandur Assessment Circle,
Alandur, Chennai - 600 016.
3.The Commercial Tax Officer,
Alandur Assessment Circle,
Alandur, Chennai - 600 016. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC against the
order dated 07.08.2020 passed in W.P.No.32408 of 2019.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Baktha Siromoni
For Respondents : Ms.E.Ranganayaki
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The petitioner states that a writ appeal has been filed as
against order dated 07.08.2020 as against which the present review
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev Aplw No. 48 of 2023
petition has been filed. In fact, the index to the typed-set only sets
out the grounds of appeal and no ground for review is made out.
2. In the course of oral hearing, learned counsel would
reiterate the stand already noted and dealt with under order dated
07.08.2020 on the applicability of majority judgment in the case of
Kone Elevator Pvt Ltd vs State of Tamil Nadu 71 VST 1. After having
considered all the points, I had at paragraph 13 relegated the
petitioner to the appellate authority since the question of whether
the transactions in issue constitute works contracts or sales would
involve an examination of the contracts as well as various other
factual particulars and such an exercise cannot be undertaken in
writ jurisdiction.
3. That apart, though no ground has been raised,
Mr.C.Baktha Siromoni, learned counsel for the petitioner would also
refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Filterco
and another v Commissioner of Sales Tax, MP and other 61 STC
318. The argument of the petitioner is that there is a Circular of the
Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, dated 06.08.2007
which is in favour of the petitioner and in light of the said circular,
the matter ought not to have relegated to appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev Aplw No. 48 of 2023
4. Reliance on the aforesaid judgment is misconceived for
the reason that, in that judgment, the proposition laid down was
that a Circular issued by a superior authority would bind an
assessing officer and in such circumstances, there is no point in
remanding the matter to the file of the assessing authority to be re-
done.
5. In the present case, the petitioner has been relegated to
appeal which means that the matter will be heard by the appellate
authority. That apart, and pertinently, as circular dated 06.08.2007,
according to learned counsel, favours the petitioner, I see no
difficulty on this score and the ratio of the judgment in FilterCo
(supra) is inapplicable to the present case.
6. This review petition is dismissed. No costs.
11.04.2023
Index:Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes
ssm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev Aplw No. 48 of 2023
DR. ANITA SUMANTH,J.
ssm
To:
1.The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk,
Chennai - 600 005.
2.The Assistant Commissioner (CT),
Alandur Assessment Circle,
Alandur, Chennai - 600 016.
3.The Commercial Tax Officer,
Alandur Assessment Circle,
Alandur, Chennai - 600 016.
Rev.Aplw.No.48 of 2023
11.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
