Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 2183
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
T. RAJA, J.
M/s. T.M.J. Textile & Readymades Petitioner
Vs.
The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Ettayapuram Assessment Circle - Respondent
W.P.(MD). No. 12710 of 2016
Decided On : 20-7-2016
For the Petitioner: M/s. S. Karunakar
For the Respondent: Mr. R. Karthikeyan Additional Government Pleader
Failure to reply to a notice within the stipulated time and to avail of the opportunities available to defend the case can lead to the dismissal of a Writ Petition.
Headnote:
distrait notice - Writ Petition - The court dismissed the Writ Petition challenging the distrait notice dated 08.03.2016, emphasizing that the petitioner had not taken any steps to reply to the notice within the stipulated time, and had failed to avail of the opportunities available to defend the case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the distrait notice dated 08.03.2016 demanding a sum of Rs. 5,47,016/-, claiming to have paid a lesser amount earlier. The court noted that the petitioner had not replied to the notice within the stipulated time.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the Writ Petition, stating that the petitioner had not chosen to take any steps to give a suitable reply to the notice within the time stipulated in the Act, and had failed to avail of the opportunities available to defend the case.
Issues: Challenging the distrait notice dated 08.03.2016 demanding a sum of Rs. 5,47,016/-, when the petitioner claimed to have paid a lesser amount earlier.
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner's failure to reply to the notice within the stipulated time and to avail of the opportunities available to defend the case led to the dismissal of the Writ Petition.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed in limine, with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
The Writ petitioner challenges the order of the second respondent dated 14.08.2015.
2. The case of the petitioner is that after the assessment order was passed on 14.08.2015, the respondent has subsequently passed a distrait notice dated 08.03.2016 stating that the petitioner has to pay a sum of Rs. 2,53,705/- towards tax amount and penalty to the tune of Rs. 3,80,705/-, totalling a sum of Rs. 6,34,262/-. It is further stated that out of the said amount the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs. 11,234/- for the month of December,2014 and January,2015. Challenging the order dated 14.08.2015, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is not fair and proper for the respondent to issue a distrait notice dated 08.03.2016 demanding a sum of Rs. 5,47,016/-, when the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs. 11,234/- for the month of December, 2014 and January, 2015.
4. Mr. R. Raja Karthikeyan, learned Government Advocate was put on notice.
5. The case of the petitioner reminds me the story of rip van winkle. The petitioner has slept over the matter for a quite long time. Therefore, first of all, this Court is not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition on the ground that the notice dated 08.03.2016 has been served well in time and the petitioner has not chosen to take any steps to give reply to the said notice dated 08.03.2016. In other words, the petitioner could have very well defended his case by giving a suitable reply within the time stipulated in the Act. More than ten months have gone by since the date of issuing the original notice dated 13.07.2015 to the petitioner. Having failed to avail of the opportunities available to him, this Court has no option but to dismiss the Writ Petition.
6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed in limine. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
