w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n


Agro Tech Engineering, Represented by its Partner S. Jayaraman, Chennai v/s The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai & Another

    W.P. No. 11234 of 2019 & W.M.P. No. 11605 of 2019
    Decided On, 09 June 2022
    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras
    By, THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
    For the Petitioner: A.S. Mujibur Rahman, K. Sivakumar, Advocates. For the Respondents: Richardson Wilson, Additional Government Pleader.


Judgment Text
(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 relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 30.11.2018 and received by the petitioner on 03.01.2019 in Assessment Number and Year CST 987057/2014-15 and quash the same and to direct the 2nd respondent to affford an opportunity of personal hearing and pass fresh order for the assessment year 2014-15.)

1. Heard Mr.A.S.Mujibur Rahman, K Sivakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Richardson Wilson, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

2. The petitioner challenges an order of assessment passed in terms of the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ('Act') for the period 2014-15. Notices dated 27.12.2016 were served upon the petitioner on 17.01.2017 calling for objections to the proposals contained therein, that related to the sales not covered by C Forms to tax at the higher rate of 14.5%. The petitioner did not bother to respond to the same.

3. A second notice was issued on 08.11.2018 that has also, admittedly, been received by the petitioner on 13.11.2018 affording an opportunity to file objections and appear at any point of time within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of the notice.

4. Normally this Court would be inclined to take a view that to make the personal hearing effective, such hearing must be fixed by date and time, as such certainty would be to the advantage of both the parties and the office is not expected to be available at all times on the stated dates, to await the appearance of the petitioner.

5. However in this case, seeing as the petitioner has not appeared for either of the hearings fixed, I am not inclined to take the above view. The petitioner makes a tentative attempt to explain his non-appearance/non-response to notice dated 08.11.2018 citing medical reasons. He circulates a medical record dated 13.10.2018 which is an out-patient record of his father’s visit to the JIPMER Hospital, Puducherry. This record is of no assistance to the petitioner as the hearing notice has been issued a month thereafter.

6. That apart, this writ petition has been filed only on 10.04.2019, beyond the statutory limit for availing of appellate

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
remedy under the statute. On this score as well, there is no justification to entertain the writ petition and consider the relief sought. With the discussion as above, this writ petition stands dismissed. Connected writ miscellaneous petition is closed. No Costs.
O R