WP/44766/2016 of Tvl. Marutham Electricals Vs The Assistant Commissioner on 29 December 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

Tvl.Marutham Electricals,rep by its Partner A.Gopal,No.7, Mettur Road,Erode – 638 001. .. Petitioner in both W.Ps Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT) (FAC),Mettur Road Assessment Circle,Erode... Respondent in both W.Ps Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, seeking for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for therecords on the files of the respondent in TIN:33683042850 forthe assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16 dated 02.12.2016 andquash the same.

For Respondents : Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai,(in both W.Ps) Additional Government Pleader (Tax)C O M M O N O R D E R

The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petitionchallenging the assessment order dated 02.12.2016.

2. The issues which have been raised by the petitionerbefore this Court in W.P.Nos.44766 of 2016 are as follows:(i)Mis-match – seller not filed return withpayment of tax to the respective assessingauthority – issue covered by decision of this Courtin W.P.No.32383of 2016 dated 07.10.2016 [SriMurugan Textile Traders, Erode Vs. AssistantCommissioner (CT), Bhavani Assessment Circle,Bhavani].

(ii) Wrong assumption by the respondent thatthe seller had given certain percentage ofdiscount. Therefore, he disallowed the input taxcredit to that extent notwithstanding the fact thatthere is no such discount and in fact thehttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

petitioner had sold value more than the purchasevalue and accordingly the Value Added Tax had beenarrived at and paid to the department.

3. The issues which have been raised by the petitionerbefore this Court in W.P.Nos.44767 of 2016 are as follows:(i)Mis-match – seller not filed return withpayment of tax to the respective assessing authority– issue covered by decision of this Court inW.P.No.32383of 2016 dated 07.10.2016 [Sri MuruganTextile Traders, Erode Vs. Assistant Commissioner(CT), Bhavani Assessment Circle, Bhavani].

(ii) There was an amount of Rs.70,71,589/- saidto have been a value of stock variation as arrivedat by the Inspecting Official and projected by therespondent in a tabular statement notwithstandingthe fact that there was no verification of stock byphysically with reference to the accounts maintainedby the petitioner. But simply a lump sum stock ofRs.1,00,24,647/- has been shown as the actual stock.Both Inspecting Official as well as the respondenthad erred and done a patent error in furnishingactual stock statement that was compared with thatof the book stock.

4. It is not in dispute that the first issue mentionedsupra in both the present Writ Petitions is already covered bythe decision of this Court made in W.P.No.32383of 2016 dated07.10.2016 [Sri Murugan Textile Traders, Erode Vs. AssistantCommissioner (CT), Bhavani Assessment Circle, Bhavani]

5. With regard to the second issue, whether the decisionis applicable or not is a matter for the authority to decide.This Court cannot mechanically say that this issue is alsocovered by the decision rendered by this Court. It is open tothe petitioner to prefer an appeal before the concernedAppellate Authority, if so advised.

6. With this observation, the Writ Petitions are disposedof. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneouspetitions are closed.

Sd/- Asst.Registrar

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Note: Registry is directed to returnthe original impugned orders to thelearned counsel for the petitioner.

To

The Assistant Commissioner (CT) (FAC),Mettur Road Assessment Circle,Erode.

+1cc to Mr.R.Senniappan,Advocate sr.76468

+1cc to The Government Pleader sr.76459W.P.Nos.44766 & 44767 of 2016 andW.M.P Nos.38594 & 38595 of 2016kji(co)ss(19/01/2017)