Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Tvl.Susee Automobiles Pvt. Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes on 1 July, 2024

Author: C.Saravanan

Bench: C.Saravanan

                                                              W.P.(MD) Nos.19656 & 19660 of 2020

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                               DATED : 01.07.2024

                                                      CORAM

                                  THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

                                       W.P.(MD) Nos.19656 & 19660 of 2020
                                                      and
                                      W.M.P.(MD) Nos.16381 & 16386 of 2020

                    Tvl.Susee Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.,
                    Represented by its Managing Director
                    J.Ragiv Subramanian,
                    S/o.S.Jeyabalan,
                    No.25, Tamilsangam Road,
                    Madurai - 625 001.                                        ... Petitioner in
                                                                                  both W.Ps.

                                                        Vs.

                    1.The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,
                      O/o. The Principal and Special Commissioner
                          of Commercial Taxes,
                      Ezhilagam, Chepauk,
                      Chennai - 600 005.

                    2.The State Tax Officer,
                      Thirupparankundram Assessment Circle,
                      Commercial Taxes Complex,
                      Dr.Thangaraj Salai,
                      Madurai - 625 020.                                      ... Respondents in
                                                                                  both W.Ps.

                    Common Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of Constitution of
                    India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining
                    to the impugned proceedings of the second respondent in TIN:

                    _____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                    Page No. 1 of 8
                                                                W.P.(MD) Nos.19656 & 19660 of 2020

                    33143521454/2006-07 and TIN:33143521454/2007-08 dated 30.11.2020
                    and quashing the same.

                                    For Petitioner
                                    in both W.Ps.      : Mr.S.Rajasekar

                                    For Respondents
                                    in both W.Ps.   : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar
                                                      Additional Government Pleader


                                              COMMON ORDER

By this common order, both these Writ Petitions are being disposed of.

2. In these Writ Petitions, the petitioner has challenged the impugned Assessment Orders dated 30.11.2020 passed by the second respondent for the Assessment Years 2006-2007 & 2007-2008 under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. By the impugned Assessment Orders, the demands have been confirmed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that although the petitioner had given detailed replies on 13.02.2019 separately for the Assessment Years 2006-2007 & 2007-2008 wherein several documents were enclosed, the impugned Assessment Orders record as if the _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 2 of 8 W.P.(MD) Nos.19656 & 19660 of 2020 petitioner has not furnished any documents. It is further submitted that in the reference portion of the impugned Assessment Orders, there is a reference to the reply of the petitioner dated 14.02.2019. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not filed any reply on 14.02.2019. The petitioner has filed reply only on 13.02.2019, wherein, the petitioner has enclosed the following documents:-

For A.Y. 2006-2007 For A.Y. 2007-2008 _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 3 of 8 W.P.(MD) Nos.19656 & 19660 of 2020 i. Registered document of title for i. Mis-matching list furnished by the purchase of Land. the department.
ii. The Ledger Account of the ii. Final Account Statements for petitioner's business for the the year 2007-08. Land and Building in the year iii. List of purchases of materials 2006-2007. reflected in Annexure-I and iii. Transaction details with included in Workshop Expenses Tvl.Susee Auto Sales and in Final Account for the year Service. 2007-08.
iv. Asset-cum-Depreciation iv. Balance Sheet for the year Statement as prepared by the 2007-08.
Chartered Accountant for v. Asset-cum-Depreciation Income Tax Purpose for the Statement as prepared by the year 2006-2007. Charted Accountant for Income v. Actual Asset-cum-Depreciation Tax Purpose for the year Account for the year 2007-08.
2006-2007. vi. Actual Asset-cum-Depreciation vi. Details of tax paid to the demo Account for the year 2007-08.
vehicles. vii.Details of cost, tax paid and vii.Ledger Accounts for the year insurance paid to the demo 2006-07, which is the basis for vehicles.
                               the Asset Account for the year    viii.Ledger Accounts for the year
                               2006-07 for which taxes are            2007-08, which is the basis for
                               paid.                                  the Asset Account for the year
                          viii.Copy of Ledger Adhayam                 2007-08 for which taxes are
                               Account during the year                paid.
                               2006-07.                          ix. Ledger Adhayam Account
                          ix. Ledger Account of the Discount          during the year 2007-08.
                               allowed to the customers on       x. Ledger Accounts of the
                               various counts.                        Discount allowed to the
                                                                      customers on various counts
                                                                      and the amount received as
                                                                      warranty and discounts.




4. It is submitted that despite the petitioner has filed above documents in support of its contention, the second respondent has held that the petitioner did not produce any purchase invoices for its own _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 4 of 8 W.P.(MD) Nos.19656 & 19660 of 2020 purchases related to the maintenance work.
5. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents would submit that these Writ Petitions are devoid of merits and are liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that though the petitioner has an alternate remedy before the Deputy Appellate Commissioner under provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of these Writ Petitions and therefore, the petitioner may be directed to work out its remedy before the Deputy Appellate Commissioner. He therefore prayed for dismissal of these Writ Petitions.
6. Having considered the arguments advanced by the leaned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents, I am of the view that there is manifest violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the petitioner has produced documents mentioned above along with the reply dated 13.02.2019.

These have not been considered. Instead, the petitioner has been blamed for not producing purchase invoices. In case, any shortcoming was noticed in the documents filed by the petitioner, the petitioner could have been called upon to produce such documents such as purchase invoices. _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 5 of 8 W.P.(MD) Nos.19656 & 19660 of 2020 However, in the impugned order, the shortcoming has been pointed out for the first time.

7. Considering the same, the impugned Assessment Orders are set aside and the cases are remitted back to the second respondent to pass fresh orders on merits within a period of 3 months from the date of disposal of this order.

8. The petitioner is given liberty to file additional documents and representations, if any, within a period of 30 days from the date of disposal of this order.

9. In the result, these Writ Petitions stand disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

01.07.2024 Index: Yes/ No Neutral Citation: Yes / No Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order JEN _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 6 of 8 W.P.(MD) Nos.19656 & 19660 of 2020 Copy To:

1.The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, O/o. The Principal and Special Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
2.The State Tax Officer, Thirupparankundram Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Complex, Dr.Thangaraj Salai, Madurai - 625 020.

_____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 7 of 8 W.P.(MD) Nos.19656 & 19660 of 2020 C.SARAVANAN, J.

JEN W.P.(MD) Nos.19656 & 19660 of 2020 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.16381 & 16386 of 2020 01.07.2024 _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 8 of 8