Siemens Ltd vs The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate on 27 August, 2014

[Cites 1, Cited by 7]

Madras High Court

Siemens Ltd vs The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate on 27 August, 2014

Bench: V. Ramasubramanian

       

  

  

 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.08.2014
CORAM
THE  HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
W.P. No. 22155 of 2014
&
M.P. No. 1 of 2014
Siemens Ltd.,
No.4, MG Road,
Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai  600 034.						..Petitioner

Vs.

1.	The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate
	  Tribunal (Main Bench),
	rep. By the Secretary,
	City Civil Court Building,
	Chennai  600 104.

2.	The Assistant Commissioner (CT),
	Nungambakkam Assessment Circle,
	No.88, Mayor Ramanathan Salai,
	Chennai  600 031.					..Respondents

Prayer:	Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the case from the file of the 1st respondent herein, quash the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in TMP NO. 24 of 2014 dated 02.08.2014 and direct the 2nd respondent not to proceed with recovery proceedings till the disposal of the appeal pending before the 1st respondent.
		For Petitioner	::	Mr.R. Venkataraman, 
						Senior Counsel for
						Ms. Lakshmi Sriram

		For Respondents	::	Mr.S. Manoharan Sundaram, 
						Additional Government Pleader (T)

O R D E R

The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, challenging the condition imposed by the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.25 lakhs.

2. Heard Mr.R. Venkataraman, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Manoharan Sundaram, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

3. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner CT III, as against the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Nungambakkam Assessment Circle. Insofar as certain aspects are concerned, the petitioner filed an appeal to the highest authority, namely, the 1st respondent Tribunal. The Secretary of the Tribunal returned the appeal on the ground that in respect of residual matters, the appeal is not permissible.

4. But, upon the learned Senior Counsel mentioning before the Tribunal, the stay petition alone was numbered as TMP No. 24 of 2014 and the Tribunal granted an interim stay subject to the petitioner depositing Rs.25 lakhs. Curiously, the appeal was not directed to be numbered. On the contrary, the Tribunal held that the question of maintainability of the appeal can be decided at the time of hearing of the appeal. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

5. Today, the petitioner does not know whether their appeal will be entertained or not. The Tribunal itself is not sure of the maintainability of the appeal. In such an event, I do not know how the petition for stay alone could be numbered and stay granted on condition that the petitioner deposits Rs.25 lakhs. In the event of the Tribunal, ultimately, holding that the appeal is not maintainable, the conditional order passed will also fail for want of jurisdiction.

6. Apart from the above, it is seen that the main grievance of the petitioner is 'F' forms submitted by them, were not considered by the Assessing Authority. If 'F' forms submitted by the petitioner had been considered, the taxable turnover would have been reduced to Rs.10,92,091/-. In such an event, the tax would work out to only Rs.1,74,735/- @ 16% . In such circumstances, I am of the view that, instead of allowing the Tribunal to take up the issue of maintainability eventually, leaving both the assesee and the Department in the lurch, the matter can be remitted back to the 2nd respondent for a fresh consideration.

7. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the 2nd respondent. The petitioner shall deposit with the 2nd respondent, a sum of Rs.1,74,735/- (Rupees One lakh Seventy Four Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty Five only), after which, the 2nd respondent shall consider the 'F' forms submitted by the petitioner and pass orders afresh. No costs. Connected M.P. is closed.

27.08.2014 nv (Note to Office: Issue order copy by 28.08.2014) V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J.

nv To

1. The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), rep. By the Secretary, City Civil Court Building, Chennai 600 104.

2. The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Nungambakkam Assessment Circle, No.88, Mayor Ramanathan Salai, Chennai 600 031.

W.P. No. 22155 of 2014

27.08.2014

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court