Madras High Court
M/S. Ting Ling Exports Pvt. Ltd vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer on 14 December, 2020
Author: P.D. Audikesavalu
Bench: P.D. Audikesavalu
W.P. Nos. 4443 and 4444 of 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.12.2020
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU
W.P. Nos. 4443 and 4444 of 2005
and
W.P.M.P. Nos. 4924 to 4926 of 2005
W.P. No. 4443 of 2005:-
M/s. Ting Ling Exports Pvt. Ltd.
No.8, SIDCO Harvey Road
Tirupur. ... Petitioner
-vs-
1. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
Kongunagar Assessment Circle
Tirupur.
2. The Principal Commissioner and
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Ezhilagam, Chepauk
Chennai – 600 005. ... Respondents
Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of
the impugned proceedings of the First Respondent herein in
TNGST/2440517/1996-97 on his files, relating to the assessment year
TNGST/1995-96 quash the proceedings dated 28.01.2005 issued therein and
further direct the respondents to give the Petitioner the benefit of compromise
formula of payment of 25% of the total demand in respect of the turnover
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/6
W.P. Nos. 4443 and 4444 of 2005
relating to the Quota sales applicable for the assessment years TNGST/1995-96
to all the assessees without making any distinction, irrespective of cases where
appeals have been preferred or not.
For Petitioner : Mr. B.Raveendran
For Respondent : Mr. A.N.R.Jayaprathap
Government Advocate
W.P. No. 4444 of 2005:-
M/s. Ting Ling Exports Pvt. Ltd.
No.8, SIDCO Harvey Road
Tirupur. ... Petitioner
-vs-
1. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
Kongunagar Assessment Circle
Tirupur.
2. The Principal Commissioner and
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Ezhilagam, Chepauk
Chennai – 600 005. ... Respondents
Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of
the impugned proceedings of the First Respondent hereing in
TNGST/2440517/1996-97 on his files, relating to the assessment year
TNGST/1996-97 quash the proceedings dated 28.01.2005 issued therein and
further direct the respondents to give the Petitioner the benefit of compromise
formula of payment of 25% of the total demand in respect of the turnover
relating to the Quota sales applicable for the assessment years TNGST/1996-97
http://www.judis.nic.in
2/6
W.P. Nos. 4443 and 4444 of 2005
to all the assessees without making any distinction, irrespective of cases where
appeals have been preferred or not.
For Petitioner : Mr. B.Raveendran
For Respondent : Mr. A.N.R.Jayaprathap
Government Advocate
COMMON ORDER
(through video conference) Heard Mr. B.Raveendran, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. A.N.R.Jayaprathap, Learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.
2. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents has filed a memo dated 14.12.2020, which reads as follows:-
“It is submitted that the writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned distraint order of the First Respondent in TNGST/2440517/1996-97 dated 28.01.2005 relating to the Assessment years TNGST/1995-96 & 1996-97.
The Petitioners were in arrears of tax and penalty for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97 and orders were passed http://www.judis.nic.in 3/6 W.P. Nos. 4443 and 4444 of 2005 on 26.07.2000. Against the said order, the Petitioner preferred appeal before the First Appellate Authority and by order dated 12.02.2002, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed by the Petitioner. Hence, impugned distraint orders were passed on 28.02.2002.
After the disposal of the appeals by the First Appellate Authority, the Petitioner preferred second appeals before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Coimbatore, The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal set aside the Appeals filed by the Petitioner on 18.10.2005 in T.A. 576 of 2000 (TNGST/1995-96) and T.A. 577 of 2000 (TNGST/1996-97) and directed the Assessing Authority to refix the penalty in the light of the instructions of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (copy enclosed). In the light of the Tribunal's order, the Assessing Officer revised the assessment under Section 16 on 24.07.2008 (copy enclosed). As on date, there is no tax and penalty due from the Petitioner.
The particulars furnished above may be taken on record and direction may be given to the First Respondent to withdraw the impugned distraint order dated 28.01.2005.” http://www.judis.nic.in 4/6 W.P. Nos. 4443 and 4444 of 2005 Having regard to the aforesaid submissions made, which have been placed on record, the impugned distraint proceedings cannot survive and shall stand quashed.
3. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are disposed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
14.12.2020 Maya Index: Yes/No Note: Issue order copy by 23.12.2020. To
1. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer Kongunagar Assessment Circle Tirupur.
2. The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Ezhilagam, Chepauk Chennai – 600 005.
http://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 W.P. Nos. 4443 and 4444 of 2005 P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J.
Maya W.P. Nos. 4443 and 4444 of 2005 Dated : 14.12.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6