Madras High Court
M/S.Gvr Ashoka Chennai Orr Limited vs Assistant Commissioner (St) on 11 June, 2025
Author: Anita Sumanth
Bench: Anita Sumanth
2025:MHC:1342
W.A.Nos.1690, 1688 and 1700 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.06.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SENTHILKUMAR
Writ Appeal Nos.1690, 1688 and 1700 of 2025
and CMP.Nos.12712, 12709 & 12840 of 2025
M/s.GVR Ashoka Chennai ORR Limited
represented by its Authorized Signatory
Umasankar Muthuraman
No.133, Administrative Block,
400 ft. Road, Chinnamullalvoyal Toll Plaza
Tiruvallur, Tamil Nadu – 600 103. .. Appellant in the above W.As
vs
1 Assistant Commissioner (ST),
Cholavaram Assessment Circle,
Room No.109, 1st Floor,
Integrated Commercial Taxes Building,
Wall Tax Building, Chennai – 600 003.
2 Joint Commissioner (ST),
Thiruvallur Division,
Chennai – 600 003. .. Respondents in the above W.As
Prayer : APPEALs filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against
order dated 21.12.2024 passed in W.P.Nos.35479, 35482 and 35764 of
2024 on the file of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.Sethu Prabakaran. R
For Respondents : Ms.Amirtha Dinakaran
Government Advocate
1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 01:01:56 pm )
W.A.Nos.1690, 1688 and 1700 of 2025
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr.ANITA SUMANTH.,J)
The challenge in these Writ Appeals is to a common order dated
21.12.2024 passed in four Writ Petitions.
2. The appellant has filed four Writ Petitions, first challenging an
order of assessment dated 21.09.2023 for assessment year 2016-17 passed
in terms of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (in short 'Act'),
second and third against the consequential recovery notices dated
15.02.2024 and 13.08.2024 and the fourth Writ Petition, challenging
order dated 26.06.2024 passed by the Joint Commissioner rejecting a
revision application filed by the appellant.
3. The defence of the Commercial Taxes Department was that as
against the order of assessment, a revision would not lie and only an
appeal ought to have been filed in terms of Section 51 of the Act.
4. One of the contentions raised by the appellant was that there had
been no proper service of the assessment order. The learned Judge
declines consideration of this argument on the ground that the question of
validity and proper service constitutes a question of fact and the Court
was not inclined to go into the same. However, permission was granted
to the appellant to file an appeal challenging order of assessment dated
21.09.2023 raising all contentions including the validity of service of
notice/order, to be decided as a preliminary issue.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 01:01:56 pm )
W.A.Nos.1690, 1688 and 1700 of 2025
5. At the time when the impugned order was passed, the statutory
limitation for filing of appeal had expired and the Court left the question
of condonation open to the appellate authority for decision. The appellant
has clearly not understood the aforesaid direction as the appeal has been
filed without a delay condonation petition.
6. Hence, while passing order dated 04.03.2025, the appellate
authority has merely rejected the appeal as non-maintainable as there was
inordinate delay of 246 days. The appellate authority cannot be faulted,
since the appellant has not even filed a condonation petition before him
setting out the reasons for condonation of delay.
7. Having regard to the circumstances that arise in the present
matter, and particularly since the learned Judge had said that the question
of validity of service shall be decided as a preliminary issue, we deem it
appropriate that the delay be condoned and the appeal be decided on
merits rather than rejected at the threshold on the question of delay.
8. Hence, and for the aforesaid reasons, we condone the delay of
246 days in filing the appeal and restore the appeal to the file of the
appellate authority for decision.
DR. ANITA SUMANTH,J.
and
N. SENTHILKUMAR.,J
9. The appellant shall appear before the appellate authority, ie.., R2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 01:01:56 pm )
W.A.Nos.1690, 1688 and 1700 of 2025
on Friday, the 20th of June, 2025 at 11.00 a.m. without anticipating any
further notice in this regard, along with all relevant materials in support
of its argument relating to validity of service.
10. The appellate authority shall decide the preliminary issue and
conditional upon his decision on that argument, take the appeal for
hearing and disposal thereafter.
11. These Writ Appeals are disposed in the aforesaid terms. No
costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
[A.S.M., J] [N.S., J]
sl 11.06.2025
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order
Neutral Citation:Yes
To
1 Assistant Commissioner (ST),
Cholavaram Assessment Circle,
Room No.109, 1st Floor,
Integrated Commercial Taxes Building,
Wall Tax Building, Chennai – 600 003.
2 Joint Commissioner (ST),
Thiruvallur Division, Chennai – 600 003.
Writ Appeal Nos.1690, 1688 and 1700 of 2025
and CMP.Nos.12712, 12709 & 12840 of 2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 01:01:56 pm )
