CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2014) 09 MAD CK 0246

Saravana Selvarathinam Retail Pvt. Ltd. vs The Commercial Tax Officer

Madras High Court · Decided on 10 September 2014

HON’BLE JUDGES
V. Ramasubramanian, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 24600 of 2014 and MP. No. 1 of 2014

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

7 paragraphs · 329 words

V. Ramasubramanian, J.—The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition simply challenging an intimation sent by the Authority, who conducted a surprise inspection of the business premises.

2.

Heard Mr. R.L. Ramani, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. S. Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents.

3.

It appears that as per the authorization issued by the Joint Commissioner, Enforcement on 30.6.2014, a surprise inspection under Section 65 of the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 was conducted in four places of business of the petitioner. After completion of the inspection, the Inspecting Officer prepared a note running about 55 pages. Recording the defects so noted by the Inspecting Officer, an intimation was sent to the petitioner. Challenging the said intimation, the petitioner is before this Court.

4.

What is challenged in this writ petition is only an intimation recording the alleged defects that the Inspecting Officer noted from the records of the petitioner in the course of his surprise inspection. Nothing turns out of this inspection report unless and until any proceeding is initiated under the Act. In other words, the impugned communication does not provide a cause of action for the petitioner to come up before this Court, though it may provide a cause of action for the Assessing Authority.

5.

Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the above MP is also dismissed.

6.

Mr. R.L. Ramani, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will submit their objections to the defects recorded in the intimation.

7.

But, the stage for doing the same has not yet come. The Assessing Officer or the Revisional Authority has not yet decided to take any action on the basis of this inspection. If at all they decide to take action on this, at that stage, the concerned authority is obliged to provide a copy of this and also allow the petitioner to submit their objections.