High CourtsSingle Bench(2006) 02 MAD CK 0093

Cameo Engineering Services (P) Ltd. vs The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Chennai (South) Division and The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer

Madras High Court · Decided on 23 February 2006 · Citation: (2007) 8 VST 162

HON’BLE JUDGES
K. Mohan Ram, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 4845 of 2006

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

20 paragraphs · 377 words

K. Mohan Ram, J.—By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

2.

Writ Petition is to call for the records of the first respondent in R.P. No. 11/2004 quash the order dated 30/11/2005 and direct the second

respondent to revise the order in TNGST 1380776/97-98 dated 30/11/1998 as far as the levy of Additional Sales Tax is concerned in

accordance with Section 2(1)(aa) of the TNAST Act 1970.

3.

The short facts of the case are as follows:-

The second respondent passed an assessment order dated 30/11/1998 for the assessment year 1997-98, during the relevant period additional

sales tax could be levied if the turnover crosses Rs. 100 crores, but the petitioner''s turnover was less than 100 crores. By mistake, additional sales

tax at 2.5% was collected. Hence the petitioner submitted a petition u/s 55 of the TNGST Act for rectification of the error. But the petition was

rejected by the second respondent by his order dated 18/11/2003 and directed the petitioner to prefer an appeal. Aggrieved against the same, the

petitioner had filed a petition before the first respondent in R.P. No. 11/2004. The first respondent also rejected the revision petition by his order

dated 30/1 1/2005 and directed the petitioner to file an appeal before AAC. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner had filed the above

writ petition.

4.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that in the light of the order passed by K. Govindarajan, J. in Writ

Petition No. 17312 of 2001 dated 29/10/2001 (Sri Jalaram Trading Co. v. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Central II, Tirupur), the order of

the first respondent is liable to be set aside.

5.

Mr. Manohar Sundaram learned Government Advocate took notice on 21/2/2006 and after getting instructions submits that the said judgment

of K. Govindarajan, J. squarely applies to the facts of the case on hand.

6.

Following the above said decision, the order of the first respondent is quashed. When the assessing authority itself is having jurisdiction u/s 55 of

TNGST Act, he himself should consider the petitioner''s application filed u/s 55 of the Act on merits and in accordance with law.

7.

With the above direction, this writ petition is allowed. No costs.