Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 1452
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
B. RAJENDRAN, J.
M/s. SICGILSOL Gases Private Limited - Petitioner
Vs.
The Assistant Commissioner (CT) Srirangam Assessment Circle, Trichy – Respondent
W.P(MD)No.10965 OF 2015 & M.P(MD)No.1 of 2015 & W.P(MD)No.5455 OF 2016 & W.M.P(MD)No.4900 of 2016
Decided on : 28-03-2016
For the Petitioners: Mr.N.Sudalai for Mr.S.Karunakar
For the Respondents:Mr.R.Karthikeyan Addl.Govt.Pleader.
The court emphasized the importance of providing an opportunity of hearing and sufficient time to reply in matters related to tax collection and assessment orders.
Headnote:
Notice - Tax Collection - The court set aside the impugned assessment order and remitted the matter back to the authority, directing the authority to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the petitioner to give a reply within a specified period.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner had filed a writ petition challenging the tax collection drive and the impugned assessment order. The petitioner had already paid 25% of the tax demanded and agreed to pay a further 10% of tax.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the impugned assessment order and remitted the matter back to the authority, directing the authority to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the petitioner to give a reply within a period of fifteen days.
Issues: Challenge to tax collection drive and impugned assessment order, sufficiency of notice served to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the petitioner's partial payment of the tax and the lack of sufficient time given to reply to the notice served, leading to the setting aside of the impugned assessment order.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the connected Miscellaneous petition was closed. Another writ petition was also closed as nothing survived in light of the order passed in the first writ petition.
After some elaborate arguments, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that after filing of writ petition in W.P(MD)No.10965 of 2015, due to March collection drive, the respondent had collected 25% of the tax from the petitioner and to show his bona fide the petitioner is prepared to pay another 10% of the tax. The petitioner further states that the entire order is bereft of materials only on the ground the notice has not been served.
2. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that he issued notice but the petitioner has not given reply.
3. Taking into consideration that the petitioner has already paid 25% of the tax demanded in the impugned assessment order dated 15.05.2015 and the petitioner is also agreed to pay further 10% of tax on or before 30.04.2016, as there is no sufficient time has been given to reply, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the authority. The authority will give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the petitioner is directed to give a reply within a period of fifteen days.
4. With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.
5. In view of the order passed in the writ petition in W.P(MD)No.10965 of 2015, nothing survives in W.P.(MD)No.5455 of 2016 and hence this writ petition is closed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.
