Madras High Court
Amit Trading Company vs State Tax Officer on 11 July, 2023
W.P.No.2446 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.No.2446 of 2020
and
W.M.P.No.2842 of 2020
Amit Trading Company,
Represented by its Proprietor,
Sundarlal Changia,
86, Gandhipuram Mill Street,
Erode – 638 003. .. Petitioner
Vs.
State Tax Officer,
Park Road Circle,
Erode. .. Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on the file of the
respondent in his TNGST 2861057/2003-04 dated 18.12.2019 and quash
the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.Sriram.U
for Mr.N.Inbarajan
For Respondent : Ms.Amirtha Dinakaran
Government Advocate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.P.No.2446 of 2020
ORDER
The petitioner is challenging the impugned order of the respondent
bearing: TNGST:2861057/2003-04, dated 18.12.2019
2.A similar issue was decided by this Court in Sunrise Foods
Private Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT) (FAC), Park Road
Assessment Circle, Erode, [(2020) 80 GSTR 156 (Mad)] and the said
order has been modified by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in
Assistant Commissioner (CT) (FAC), Park Road Assessment Circle,
Erode Vs. Sunrise Foods Private Limited, [(2020) 104 GSTR 518
(Mad)]. The operative portion of the judgment of the Hon'ble Division
Bench of this Court reads as under:
“ ...
7.After elaborately hearing the learned
Additional Advocate General appearing for the
appellant and Mr.N.Prasad, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent, we are of the
view that the prayer sought for in the writ
petitions was to quash an order of assessment
and the preliminary submission was on
assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing
Officer to revise the assessment. Therefore, the
lis before the Court was as to whether the
revision of assessment was valid and whether
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2446 of 2020
there were any procedural impropriety
committed by the Assessing Officer. In such
circumstances, we are of the view that a finding
regarding taxability of the product or otherwise
may not be required to be given at that stage as
the adjudicatory process is yet to be completed.
We say so because the learned Writ Court has
ultimately remanded the matter to the Assessing
Officer to take a fresh decision. However the
Court has circumscribed the limits of the
decision and in what manner it is required to be
taken. We are of the view that when the matter
stands remanded to the authority, an open
remand would be more appropriate, especially
when the counter affidavit filed by the appellant
was a very brief counter affidavit and the
preliminary objection taken by the appellant
was that the writ petitions are not maintainable
and the respondent should have filed an appeal
under Section 51 of the Act. Therefore, we are
of the view that the matter should go back to the
Assessing Officer for a fresh decision on merits
and in accordance with law without being
influenced by any of the observations in the
order impugned before us or any findings that
might have been recorded by the Enforcement
Wing Officials. The Assessing Officer is
reminded of his powers that he is an
independent authority to take a decision in the
matter based on the facts and law which is
placed before him.
8.In the result, the writ appeals are partly
allowed and the order and direction issued in
the writ petitions in so far as it remands the
matter to the Assessing Officer is sustained and
all other observations and findings stand
vacated and the appellant Assessing Officer is
directed to take an independent decision
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2446 of 2020
uninfluenced by any of the observations
contained in the impugned order or in the
report or proceedings of the Enforcement Wing
Officials, afford an opportunity of personal
hearing to the respondent and re-do the
assessment in accordance with law. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.”
3.In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the
case is remitted back to the respondent to pass fresh order keeping note
of the status of this Court rendered in Sunrise Foods Private Limited
Vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT) (FAC), Park Road Assessment
Circle, Erode, [(2020) 80 GSTR 156 (Mad)], which was modified by the
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT)
(FAC), Park Road Assessment Circle, Erode Vs. Sunrise Foods
Private Limited, [(2020) 104 GSTR 518 (Mad)].
4.Considering the fact that the dispute pertaining to the year 2003-
2004, the officer shall endeavour to dispose of the proceedings within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Needless to state that before passing such order, the petitioner shall be
heard.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2446 of 2020
5.Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed with the above
observations. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed. No costs.
11.07.2023
krk
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
To
State Tax Officer,
Park Road Circle,
Erode.
C.SARAVANAN, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2446 of 2020
krk
W.P.No.2446 of 2020
11.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
