Madras High Court
Ntt India Private Limtied vs Assistant Commissioner (Ct) on 13 September, 2024
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar, C.Saravanan
W.A.No.2833 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.A.No.2833 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.18850 of 2021
NTT INDIA PRIVATE LIMTIED
Formerly known as Dimension Data India Ltd.
Represented by its Senior Manager Taxation
Bhaivik H Shah, Good Shepard Square, 4th Floor,
No.82, Kodambakkam High Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai-600034. .. Appellant
(Cause title accepted vide court order
dated 20.10.2021 made in CMP No.
16710 of 2021 in WA SR No.86712
of 2021)
-vs-
Assistant Commissioner (CT),
Nungambakkam Assessment Circle,
No.88, Mayor Ramanathan Road,
Chennai-600 031 .. Respondent
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters patent against the
order dated 09.07.2021 passed in W.P.No.9274 of 2014 on the file of
this Court.
__________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2833 of 2021
For the Appellant : Mr.N.Murali
For the Respondent : Mr.C.Harsharaj
Additional Government
Pleader
*****
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by R.Suresh Kumar, J.)
This intra-court appeal has been filed against the order passed
by the Writ Court dated 09.07.2021 made in W.P.No.9274 of 2014.
2. The writ petitioner claimed the benefit of classification of
routers as has been made by this Court in W.P.No.39115 of 2005.
However, that was negated by the Writ Court on the ground that the
said judgment is of the year 2017, however, the order impugned
before the Writ Court was passed by the authority concerned on
10.03.2014 with reference to the Assessment Year 2003-2004.
Therefore, if at all the benefit given under the said judgment is to be
extended to the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2003-2004 also,
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
an adjudication has to be made specifically with regard to the facts
and circumstances as to whether the appellant/petitioner is entitled
to get such extension of benefit for the Assessment Year 2003-2004
also.
3. Though this reason has been stated by the learned Judge,
ultimately, the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition by
permitting the petitioner to go before the Appellate Authority to
agitate the order which was impugned before the Writ Court.
4. We have heard Mr.N.Murali, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant/assessee and Mr.C.Harsharaj, learned Additional
Government Pleader appearing for the respondent/Revenue.
5. Even assuming that the reason stated by the learned Judge
in para 4 of the impugned order is to be accepted, even for the said
reason, the matter ought to have been remitted back to the Assessing
Authority for re-assessment or re-adjudication and for that purpose,
the appellant/writ petitioner ought not to have been relegated to go
before the Appellate Authority.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. It is also brought to our notice that by judgment dated
25.03.2024 in W.P.No.12804 of 2008 (in the matter of Tvl.Datacraft
India Ltd. vs. Special Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and
Another), the Division Bench has passed the following order:
"2. The present petition is filed seeking declaration that
the impugned clarification of the first respondent dated
23.12.2002 under Section 28-A of the TNGST Act, 1959 is
applicable in so far as the petitioner is concerned.
3. It is submitted that similar clarification issued on
29.07.2004 was the subject matter of consideration in
W.P.No.39115 of 2005 before the learned Single Judge of this
Court. Under judgment and order dated 06.11.2017, the
learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and held that
the router is a peripheral of the computer.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents/Revenue, on
instructions, submits that the said judgment is not appealed
by the Department.
In view of the fact that the aforesaid judgment has been
accepted by the Department, the present writ petition is also
disposed of in terms of the order dated 06.11.2017 passed in
W.P.No.39115 of 2005. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed."
7. In view of the same, most probably the appellant/writ
petitioner would be entitled to get the benefit. However, that has to
be re-visited and decided by the Assessing Authority. For the limited
purpose, the matter can be remitted back to the Assessing Authority.
To that extent, the order passed by the learned Judge which is
impugned herein is modified.
8. Accordingly, this writ appeal is ordered to the extent
indicated above. There is no order as to costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
(R.S.K., J.) (C.S.N., J.)
13.09.2024
Index : Yes/No
NC : Yes/No
sra
To
The Assistant Commissioner (CT),
Nungambakkam Assessment Circle,
No.88, Mayor Ramanathan Road,
Chennai-600 031
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
AND
C.SARAVANAN,J.
(sra)
13.09.2024
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
