Madras High Court
Tvl.Tata Tele Services Limited vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer on 7 September, 2016
Author: T.S.Sivagnanam
Bench: T.S.Sivagnanam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07.09.2016 C O R A M THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM WP.No.24340/2005 & WPMP.No.26582/2005 Tvl.Tata Tele Services Limited rep.by Assistant Manager, Legal, No.2,3&4, Thiru-vi-ka Road Anna Salai, Chennai-2. .. Petitioner Versus 1.The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer [Enforcement] Group IV, Salem. 2.The Commercial Tax Officer Anna Salai II Assessment Circle Chennai. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records on the file of the 1st respondent in G.D.No.1/2005 dated 11.07.2005 and the connected proceedings of the 1st respondent, quash order dated 11.07.2005 being illegal and contrary to the Act and Rules and direct the 1st respondent to release the consignment detained under the impugned proceedings. For Petitioner ... Mr.A.Balakrishnan For Respondents ... Mr.K.Venkatesh, GA ORDER
Heard Mr.A.Balakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Venkatesh, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.
2 The petitioner, in this writ petition, challenges the Goods Detention Notice and the consequential proceedings by the 1st respondent for the purpose of compounding fee.
3 Admittedly, so far as the challenge to the Goods Detention Notice, the same by efflux of time, has become infructuous and this is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. But, so far as the proposal to levy compounding fee is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he has no instructions from his client. From the parawise instructions given by the 1st respondent to the learned Special Government Pleader, it is seen that the 1st respondent also has stated that the petitioner is required to seek liberty before the higher authorities of the Department as against the levy of compounding fee. The material papers filed along with this writ petition also do not show that any order has been passed for levying of compounding fee. Therefore, before levying of the compounding fee, a notice should be issued to the petitioner so that they will be able to give a proper reply. This observation is made because of efflux of time and it is not known as to what would be the present state of affairs and therefore, it would be better for the respondents to proceed further, if they so desire, after issuing notice to the petitioner.
4 With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
07.09.2016 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No AP To
1.The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer [Enforcement] Group IV, Salem.
2.The Commercial Tax Officer Anna Salai II Assessment Circle Chennai.
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J., AP WP.No.24340/2005 07.09.2016