Madras High Court
M/S.Rinku Steel Industries vs The Assistant Commissioner (St) on 27 July, 2022
Author: Anita Sumanth
Bench: Anita Sumanth
W.P.No.19003 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.07.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
W.P.No.19003 of 2022 &
WMP.No.18325 of 2022
M/s.Rinku Steel Industries
rep. by its Proprietor Mavaram,
No.44/55, Shop No.4, Ground Floor,
Mugappair Road, Padi,
Chennai 600 050. ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Assistant Commissioner (ST),
Guindy Assessment Circle,
Room No.255, Integrated Buildings for Commercial Tax,
Nandanam, Chennai 600 035. ... Respondent
Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue
Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the
respondent in TIN/33950906422/2013-14 dated 18.05.2022 and quash the same
as illegal, contrary to the provisions of the Act, principles of law laid down by
this Court in petitioner's own case and against the principles of natural justice and
fair play and direct the respondent to provide reasonable opportunity and
personal hearing.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Prithvi Chopda
For Respondent : Mr.C.Harsha Raj
Additional Government Pleader
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1
W.P.No.19003 of 2022
ORDER
Mr.C.Harsha Raj, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice for the respondents and is armed with necessary instructions to enable this Court to dispose this Writ Petition finally even at this juncture. Hence, by consent of both learned counsel, this Writ Petition is disposed even at the stage of admission.
2. The petitioner states that it could not respond to the four notices, admittedly, issued and received by it prior to completion of assessment, on account of various difficulties. It relies upon the order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court dated 19.06.2015 in W.P.Nos.17567 and 17568 of 2015 for the periods 2011-12 and 2012-13, wherein, according to the petitioner an identical challenge for the earlier years has been accepted and the matter remanded back to the file of the Assessing Authority.
3. Per contra, learned Government Pleader relies upon an order passed by another learned Single Judge of this Court dated 06.04.2022 in W.P.Nos.8251 and 8254 of 2022 for the periods 2014-15 and 2015-16, wherein the request of the petitioner has been rejected and the petitioner relegated to appeal.
4. One thing is clear, that the petitioner appears to be following a consistent continuous modus operandi in challenging orders of assessment before this Court wherein in all matters, there has been no response to the notices issued.
5. Faced with this position, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, offers, voluntarily, to remit a portion of the disputed tax, pleading that the order be set aside to be re-done de novo.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2 W.P.No.19003 of 2022
6. The issue on merits related to reversal of Input tax credit (ITC) on the ground that the registration of the purchasing/selling dealers have been cancelled, albeit retrospectively. Petitioner maintains that the registrations were current and live at the time of the transaction and that subsequent cancellation retrospectively should not enure to its detriment. Judicial precedent supports this position, of course, assuming the facts are as projected by the petitioner.
7. The question as to whether the transactions qua the petitioner and the other dealers was prior, or subsequent to the cancellation, is yet to be ascertained. The officer has had no occasion to advert to this position, seeing as the petitioner has not responded to the notices. Learned government pleader bearing note of the voluntary offer made by the petitioner for remittance of a portion of the tax dues, would have no objection to the order of assessment being set aside to be re-done.
8. Hence, upon condition that the petitioner remit 20% of the tax dues forthwith, the impugned order is set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration. Let the petitioner appear before the Authority on Wednesday, the 10th of August, 2022 at 10.30 a.m. without expecting any further notice in this regard with a written response to the show cause notices already received. After hearing the petitioner, orders shall be passed de novo within a period of four weeks from date of conclusion of personal hearing, in accordance with law.
DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3 W.P.No.19003 of 2022
9. Prior to taking the proceedings up de novo, the Assessing Officer shall satisfy himself of compliance of the aforesaid condition as imposed by this Court. It is made clear that if there is no appearance by the petitioner on the date as stipulated aforesaid, the impugned order of assessment will stand revived without further reference to the writ petitioner.
10. This writ petition stands disposed as above. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
27.07.2022 ska/sl Index : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non speaking Order To The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Guindy Assessment Circle, Room No.255, Integrated Buildings for Commercial Tax, Nandanam, Chennai 600 035.
W.P.No.19003 of 2022 & WMP.No.18325 of 2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4