Madras High Court
M/S.Arss Anpr (Jv) vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 30 October, 2014
Author: T.S.Sivagnanam
Bench: T.S. Sivagnanam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.10.2014
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
W.P.Nos.28393 to 28396 of 2014
and
M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014 (4 cases)
M/s.ARSS ANPR (JV),
Rep. by its Authorised Signatory,
Umakanta Patnaik,
7, Aziz Mulk 8th Street,
3rd Floor,
Thousand Lights,
Chennai 600 006. ... Petitioner in all cases
Vs.
1. The Commercial Tax Officer,
Nandanam Assessment Circle,
46, Greenways Road,
R.A.Puram,
Chennai 600 028.
2. The Chief Engineer (Constructions),
Southern Railways,
Egmore,
Chennai 600 008.
3. The Assistant Commissioner (CT),
Nandanam Assessment Circle,
46, Greenways Road,
Chennai 600 028. ... Respondents in all cases
Prayer in W.P.No.28393 of 2014: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the 3rd respondent in TIN.No.33361582594/2013-14/A3, dated 19.08.2014 and connected proceedings of the 1st respondent in TIN.No.33361582594/2011-12 dated 03.05.2013 insofar as the assessment year 2011-12 is concerned only and quash the same as being without jurisdiction, authority of law and contrary to the principles of natural justice and further, direct the 1st respondent to pass order afresh as requested by the petitioner vide his representation dated 29.09.2014 submitted under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.
Prayer in W.P.No.28394 of 2014: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the 3rd respondent in TIN.No.33361582594/2013-14/A3, dated 19.08.2014 and connected proceedings of the 1st respondent in TIN.No.33361582594/2009-10 dated 03.05.2013 insofar as the assessment year 2009-10 is concerned only and quash the same as being without jurisdiction, authority of law and contrary to the principles of natural justice and further, direct the 1st respondent to pass order afresh as requested by the petitioner vide his representation dated 29.09.2014 submitted under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.
Prayer in W.P.No.28395 of 2014: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the 3rd respondent in TIN.No.33361582594/2013-14/A3, dated 19.08.2014 and connected proceedings of the 1st respondent in TIN.No.33361582594/2008-09 dated 03.05.2013 insofar as the assessment year 2008-09 is concerned only and quash the same as being without jurisdiction, authority of law and contrary to the principles of natural justice and further, direct the 1st respondent to pass order afresh as requested by the petitioner vide his representation dated 29.09.2014 submitted under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.
Prayer in W.P.No.28396 of 2014: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the 3rd respondent in TIN.No.33361582594/2013-14/A3, dated 19.08.2014 and connected proceedings of the 1st respondent in TIN.No.33361582594/2010-11 dated 03.05.2013 insofar as the assessment year 2010-11 is concerned only and quash the same as being without jurisdiction, authority of law and contrary to the principles of natural justice and further, direct the 1st respondent to pass order afresh as requested by the petitioner vide his representation dated 29.09.2014 submitted under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.
For Petitioner
in all cases : Mr.R.Senniappan
For Respondents 1 & 3
in all cases : Mr.Kanmani Annamalai
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent No.2 : Mr.P.T.Ramkumar
COMMON ORDER
In all these four writ petitions, the petitioner, who is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, has challenged the orders of assessment dated 03.05.2013, for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made a request to this Court that he should be permitted to argue the facts of the case elaborately. However, this Court posed a preliminary question to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how the writ petitions are maintainable.
3. Such query was posed to the learned counsel for the petitioner due to the following facts.
(i) The petitioner earlier approached this Court by way of filing W.P.Nos.10491 to 10494 of 2014, challenging the very same impugned orders of assessment dated 03.05.2013. The matter was heard by a learned Single Judge and after hearing the learned Additional Government Pleader, the learned Single Judge passed an interim order dated 10.04.2014 to the following effect:
There shall be an order of interim stay on condition that the petitioner pays 25% of the tax amount, which is claimed in the impugned orders dated 03.05.13, for each of the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, before the respondent, on or before 08.05.2014, failing which the interim order granted today shall stand automatically vacated.
Call on 02.06.2014.
(ii) In terms of the above order, the petitioner was granted the benefit of interim stay subject to the condition, the petitioner pays 25% of the tax amount as demanded in the impugned orders, before the respondent and the matter was directed to be listed on 02.06.2014. Not being satisfied with the conditional stay order granted, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Honourable Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.642 to 645 of 2014, contending that the order passed by the learned Single Judge imposing a condition on the petitioner by directing them to pay 25% of the tax amount demanded is unreasonable and not inconsonance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act. The Honourable Division Bench of this Court, after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader, dismissed the writ appeals by order dated 07.05.2014 by passing the following order:
Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent.
2. All these Writ Appeals have been preferred against the conditional order passed by the learned single Judge, directing the appellant to pay 25% of the tax amount, which had been claimed in the order dated 03.05.2013 impugned in the Writ Petitions. The appellant was directed to make payment of the tax amount, on or before 08.05.2014. The condition imposed by the learned single Judge to make 25% of the tax amount does not appear to be unreasonable and it is inconsonance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act.
3. In these circumstances, we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned single Judge. Hence, the Writ Appeals stand dismissed. However, as prayed for by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, we grant a further period of two weeks enabling the appellant to make the payment, as directed by the learned Single Judge, in the order dated 10.04.2014. No costs. All the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
4. After the dismissal of the writ appeals, two options were open to the petitioner, one is to prefer an appeal before the Honourable Supreme Court as against the order of the Division Bench or to avail the benefit of extension of time granted by the Honourable Division Bench. The petitioner did not avail either of the two options. What the petitioner did was to withdraw all the four writ petitions by making an endorsement and this Court dismissed the writ petitions as withdrawn by an order dated 04.09.2014.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that because the Southern Railway was not impleaded as a respondent in the earlier writ petitions, the petitioner withdrew all the four writ petitions and they filed the present writ petitions and that liberty was granted by the learned Single Judge.
6. I have perused the order dated 04.09.2014 and I find that the order dated 04.09.2014 dismissing the earlier writ petitions does not specifically grant liberty to file a second writ petition on the same cause of action.
7. In such circumstances, these writ petitions are clearly barred on the ground of res judicata. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed. The dismissal of these writ petitions will not stand in the way of the petitioner to file an appeal under the provisions of Act and if such an appeal is preferred within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the appellate authority shall consider the appeal and not reject the appeal on the ground of limitation and pass orders on merits and in accordance with the provisions of law.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the original of the impugned orders were filed in the earlier writ petitions and due to inadvertence, the petitioner did not seek for return of original orders.
9. Hence, the petitioner is directed to submit a representation to the Registrar (Judicial) for return of original impugned orders in the earlier writ petitions, which were dismissed on 04.09.2014 and if such representation is filed, the Registrar shall return the original orders, after retaining the copy of the impugned orders.
10. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
30.10.2014
ogy
Index : Yes / No.
Internet : Yes / No.
To
1. The Commercial Tax Officer,
Nandanam Assessment Circle,
46, Greenways Road,
R.A.Puram,
Chennai 600 028.
2. The Chief Engineer (Constructions),
Southern Railways,
Egmore,
Chennai 600 008.
3. The Assistant Commissioner (CT),
Nandanam Assessment Circle,
46, Greenways Road,
Chennai 600 028.
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
ogy
W.P.Nos.28393 to 28396 of 2014
30.10.2014