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

M/S. Poomalai Sago Factory vs The Assistant Commissioner(Ct) on 5 September, 2012

Author: M.Jaichandren

Bench: M.Jaichandren

       

  

  

 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE:   05.09.2012

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN

W.P. No.22581 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012


M/S. POOMALAI SAGO FACTORY                    
REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
ATTUR MAIN ROAD,  
OILPATTY POST,
NAMAKKAL.					...			PETITIONER  


          				Vs.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER(CT)               
RASIPURAM CIRCLE  NAMAKKAL.		...			RESPONDENT 


Prayer:  Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,  for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus, to call for the impugned proceedings of the respondent in TNGST No.3162844/2006-2007 (Upto 31.12.2006) and quash the impugned order dated 30.3.2012 as being passed without jurisdiction and authority of law and also against the principles of natural justice and to further direct the respondent to complete the assessment in accordance with Section 87-A of the TNVAT Act 2006 which was given effect to from 18th June 2008 by Section 4 of the Amendment Act No.49/2008.
		For Petitioner	  : Mr.P.Rajkumar

		For Respondents    : Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai
					     Government Advocate (Tax)

					*****

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsels appearing for both sides.

2 The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the impugned order passed by the respondent, dated 30.03.2012, is arbitrary and illegal, as it is contrary to Section 87-A of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Since, the period in question is from 01.04.2006 to 31.12.2006, a self assessment order ought to have been passed by the respondent. Instead, the respondent had made a Best Judgment Assessment, by disallowing the concession and exemption. Therefore, the impugned order of the respondent, dated 30.03.2012, is to be set aside and the matter is to be remitted back to the respondent for being considered, afresh, in accordance with Section 87-A of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, and pass an appropriate order.

3 The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent has no objection for this Court passing such an order.

4 In view of the above, the impugned order of the respondent, dated 30.03.2012, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent for passing a fresh assessment order, in view of Section 87-A of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No cost. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2012 is closed.

05.09.2012 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No vaan Note to Office: Issue order copy on 11.09.2012 To THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT), RASIPURAM CIRCLE, NAMAKKAL.

M.JAICHANDREN, J.

vaan W.P. No.22581 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 05.09.2012