Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ANITA SUMANTH, J.
M/s. Kasthuri Traders – Petitioner
Versus
The Commercial Tax Officer, Chennai – Respondent
W.P. Nos. 26712, 26715, 26717 of 2019, W.M.P. Nos. 26094, 26096, 26099 of 2019
Decided On : 13-07-2022
Writ Petitions - Assessment Orders - Article 226 - TIN No. 33853340110/2011-2012, 2012-13, 2013-14 - [Article 226, TIN No. 33853340110/2011-2012, 2012-13, 2013-14] - The court discussed the repeated litigation initiated by the petitioner challenging assessment orders, the opportunity granted to the petitioner to submit objections, and the authority's right to initiate recovery proceedings if objections were not filed within the stipulated time frame. The court found no merit in the writ petitions and confirmed the impugned orders.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged assessment orders for the periods 2007-08, 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15. The court found that the petitioner had been granted multiple opportunities to raise objections but failed to comply with the court's orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no merit in the writ petitions and confirmed the impugned orders. The petitioner was granted opportunities to submit objections but failed to do so, leading to the dismissal of the writ petitions.
Issues: Repeated litigation challenging assessment orders, petitioner's failure to comply with court orders to submit objections, and the authority's right to initiate recovery proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of complying with court orders and the consequences of failing to do so. It confirmed the authority's right to initiate recovery proceedings if the petitioner did not file objections within the stipulated time frame.
Final Decision: The court found no merit in the writ petitions, confirmed the impugned orders, and closed the connected writ miscellaneous petitions.
JUDGMENT :
ANITA SUMANTH, J.
Prayer in W.P. No. 26717 of 2019: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 3rd respondent in his impugned order in TIN No. 33853340110/2011-2012, dated 28.06.2019 received by the petitioner on 07.07.2019 and to direct the respondents to follow procedure contemplated under the act by giving proper personal hearing and to produce Bank statements with dealers name etc.
W.P. No. 26717 of 2019: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 3rd respondent in his impugned order in TIN No. 33853340110/2012-13, dated 28.06.2019 received by the petitioner on 07.07.2019 and to direct the respondents to follow procedure contemplated under the act by giving proper personal hearing and to produce Bank statements with dealers name etc.
W.P. No. 26715 of 2019: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 3rd respondent in his impugned order in TIN No. 33853340110/2013-14, dated 28.06.2019 received by the petitioner on 07.07.2019 and to direct the respondents to follow procedure contemplated under the act by giving proper personal hearing and to produce Bank statements with dealers name etc.
1. The petitioner is in the second round of litigation and challenges orders of assessments that have been passed on 28.06.2019. The petitioner had suffered orders of assessments originally, dated 28.03.2018 for the periods 2007-08, 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 that had been challenged by way of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.11894 to 11900 of 2018. The challenge included orders of assessments for the periods 2011-12 and 2012-13.
2. A Learned Single Judge of this Court passed the following order on 04.06.2018 of which relevant paragraphs are extracted below:
3. On perusal of the relevant documents filed in the typed set of papers, this Court finds that earlier, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 17735 of 2014 challenging the findings recorded by the Inspecting Authority pursuant to the surprise inspection conducted in the petitioner's place of business between 18.6.2014 and 21.6.2014. Ultimately, this Court disposed of the said writ petition on 26.7.2016 leaving it open to the petitioner to canvass all the issues including the jurisdictional issue before the Assessing Officer. Subsequently, the notice dated 28.12.2016 was issued to the petitioner proposing to revise the assessment for the year 2007-08.
4. However, instead of filing objections, the petitioner again filed W.P. No. 16346 of 2017 before this Court questioning the jurisdiction of the Authority to issue such a notice. However, this Court did not accept the submissions made by the petitioner, but only directed the petitioner to canvass all the issues before the Authority concerned and ultimately dismissed W.P. No. 16346 of 2017 on 29.6.2017. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued the notice 13.3.2018 for personal hearing. Again, the petitioner appeared to have not cooperated with the assessment proceedings and gave a letter seeking extension of time on the alleged ground that the documents were destroyed in the floods during December 2015.
5. This Court finds that such a reason was never raised in the earlier proceedings, more particularly in the earlier two writ petitions and it is for the first time the petitioner has stated such a reason. Be that as it may, the Assessing Officer granted sufficient time, which the petitioner failed to utilize.
6. The learned counsel for the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
