Madras High Court
M/S.Global Impex vs The Assistant Commissioner (St) on 12 September, 2024
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: C.Saravanan
W.P.No.316 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.No.316 of 2022
and
W.M.P.Nos.350 and 351 of 2022
M/s.Global Impex,
Represented by its Partner V.Janarthana Guptha ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Assistant Commissioner (ST),
Namakkal (Town) Assessment Circle,
Namakkal. ... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the respondent in his
proceedings TIN : 33863122582/2012-2013 dated 03.11.2021 and quash the
same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Hariharan
For Respondent : Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran
Government Advocate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
W.P.No.316 of 2022
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court against the Impugned Assessment
Order dated 03.11.2021 passed for the Assessment Year 2012-2013.
2. At the time of filing of this writ petition, the petitioner had stated that
the Impugned Assessment Order dated 03.11.2021 has been passed without
issuing a proper Show Cause Notice and without giving an opportunity to the
petitioner to file objection under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added
Tax (TNVAT) Act, 2006.
3. However, during the course of hearing, it is submitted that the
petitioner was earlier issued with the notice dated 13.08.2019 and the Best of
Judgment Final & Reminder Notice dated 23.04.2021.
4. These notices were served to the address where the petitioner was
carrying on the business. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has
closed down the business in the year 2014 and an intimation was sent to the
respondent by Letter dated 03.09.2014.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would draw attention to the copy of
the Letter dated 03.09.2014 requesting the respondent to cancel the registration
and copy of the extract from the delivery note to state that the aforesaid Letter
was acknowledged by the respondent.
6. It is further submitted that on 17.09.2013, the Assistant Commissioner
(ST), Namakkal namely the respondent herein had also certified that there was
no dues by the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2012-2013 and that the
Impugned Assessment Order dated 03.11.2021 seeking to recover tax for the
Assessment Year 2012-2013 was therefore without merits and barred by
limitation.
7. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate for the
respondent would submit that the writ petition is devoid of merits. It is further
submitted that even if the petitioner ipso facto closed down the business in the
year 2014, there are no records to show that the petitioner had indeed closed
down the business in the year 2014-2015.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. That apart, the learned Government Advocate for the respondent would
submit that the procedure required as per Rule 19 of the Tamil Value Added
Tax (TNVAT) Rules, 2007 has been complied and therefore no fault cannot be
found that the manner in which the assessment was completed. It is submitted
that the petitioner has an alternate remedy by filing an appeal before the Deputy
Appellate Commissioner in accordance with Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu
Value Added Tax (TNVAT) Act, 2006 and therefore the writ petition should be
dismissed.
9. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for
the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondent.
10. I am of the view, the petitioner deserves a fresh opportunity to file
objection and to show cause against the Impugned Assessment Order dated
03.11.2021.
11. In this case, admittedly, the petitioner is no longer in the business as
otherwise, the Department would have received returns from the petitioner for
the succeeding period as well. There are no intimations that the petitioner has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
filed returns for the succeeding period. Be that as it may, since the petitioner is
also guilty of not intimating the respondent about the change of address and
closure of business properly and the registration of the petitioner was also not
struck off from the register maintained by the respondent, to balance the interest
of the petitioner and the respondent, the Impugned Assessment Order is set
aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent to pass a fresh order on
merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order subject to the petitioner depositing 10% of the
disputed tax as confirmed by the Impugned Assessment Order as the petitioner
has no longer in the business.
12. The Impugned Assessment Order which stands quashed shall be
treated as addendum to the the notice dated 13.08.2019 and the Best of
Judgment Final & Reminder Notice dated 23.04.2021 issued to the petitioner,
which preceded the Impugned Assessment Order.
13. The petitioner shall file a reply and make deposit of 10% of the
disputed tax within a period of four weeks from today.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
14. It is made clear that in case the petitioner fails to comply with any of
the conditions as stated above, it shall be deemed that the writ petition was
dismissed without any further reference to limitation.
15. This Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observations and
directions. No costs. Connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
12.09.2024
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
arb
To
The Assistant Commissioner (ST),
Namakkal (Town) Assessment Circle,
Namakkal.
C.SARAVANAN, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
arb
and
W.M.P.Nos.350 and 351 of 2022
12.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
