High CourtsSingle Bench(2009) 04 MAD CK 0146

Triveni Alloys Limited vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras High Court · Decided on 23 April 2009

HON’BLE JUDGES
M. Jaichandren, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 1478 of 2004 and W.P.M.P. No. 1564 of 2004

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

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

Loading membership options…

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

4 paragraphs · 228 words

M. Jaichandren, J.—The present writ petition has been filed challenging the letter of the fourth respondent in Letter No. SE/CEDC/N/(O)/AAO/HT/AS/F.E.Tax/D/03, dated 31.12.2003.

2.

At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition is covered by the Judgement of the Supreme Court, dated 15.5.2007, in Southern Petrochemicals Industries Co. Ltd. v. Electricity Inspector and E.T.I.O. and Ors. reported in 2007(3) CTC 273. It is further submitted that the said judgement of the Supreme Court deals with levy of taxes on consumption or sale of energy, under the Tamil Nadu Tax on Consumption or Sale of Electricity Act, 2003.

3.

The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents had also submitted that the impugned order of the fourth respondent, dated 31.12.2003, is liable to be set aside and appropriate relief is to be granted to the petitioner, in accordance with the judgement of the Supreme Court, dated 15.5.2007, cited supra.

4.In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsels for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, the writ petition stands allowed to the same extent, as granted by the Supreme Court by its order, dated 15.5.2007, reported in 2007(3) CTC 273. Accordingly, the writ petition stands partly allowed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.