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



M/s. Gojay Agro Food Industries, represented by its Managing Director, G. Mahendran v/s The Commercial Tax Officer (Main), Commercial Taxes Department

    W.P.(MD)No.8595 of 2011 & W.P.(MD)No.8596 of 2011

    Decided On, 11 August 2011

    At, Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR

    For the Petitioner: R. Krishnamoorthy for T. Bashyam, Advocates. For the Respondent: TR. Janarthanam, Addl. Govt. Pleader.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the case on the file of the respondent in proceedings dated 21.03.2011 in TNGST No.5781589/2004- 2005 and in TNGST No.5781589/2005-2006 and quash the same.)

Common Order

1. The writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner to issue a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the case on the file of the respondent in proceedings dated 21.03.2011 in TNGST No.5781589/2004-2005 and in TNGST No.5781589/2005-2006 and quash the same.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent.

3. By Consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

4. The orders under challenge have been passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Sathur, on remand by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (C.T). As against these orders, an appeal can be filed to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (C.T) challenging the merits of the orders. Instead, the petitioner has chosen to file the writ petitions challenging the orders contending that the Assessing Authority namely the Commercial Tax Officer failed to take into consideration the scope of the order of the Appellate Authority remanding the matter for reconsideration. One other ground raised by the petitioner is that the documents have not been considered in its entirety and properly and the finding is perverse.

5. On the contrary, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submits that the finding of the Assessing Authority is on the merits of the documents submitted by the petitioner and if he wants to contend that the documents produced will support the case of the petitioner, the remedy will be only by way of appeal where the appellate authority will look into the appeal on merits as the appeal is a continuation of original proceedings. In view of the alternative remedy available to the petitioner under law, the learned Additional Government Pleader implored upon this Court to dismiss the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioner to the file the appeal as per law.

6. Having considered the rival submissions and on going through the orders under challenge, it is clear that the Assessing Authority namely the Commercial Tax Officer has considered the records in terms of the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and has given his findings.

7. Therefore, this Court finds no justification to interfere with the impugned proceedings at this stage as the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy. There is, however, one difficulty which has been expressed by the petitioner on limitation for the purpose of filing the appeal.

8. In the present case, the Commercial Tax Officer passed the impugned orders on 21.03.2011 and served on the petitioner on 31.03.2011. The present writ petitions were filed on 01.08.2011. In view of the same, since the petitioner has prosecuted the writ petitions before this Court, the period during which the matters were pending, can be eschewed by the Appellate Authority for the purpose of limitation. The petitioner is entitled to file appropriate appeal within a period of one week from the

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner who shall consider the appeal on merits and in accordance with law. 9. The writ petitions are disposed of as above. No costs. Note: The Registry is directed to return the original impugned orders to the petitioner on submitting the photocopies of the same forthwith.
O R