Case Law Details
Aatral Associates Vs State Tax Officer (Madras High Court)
In the case of Aatral Associates vs. State Tax Officer, the Madras High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, who challenged the rejection of their appeal against a penalty imposed under an assessment order. The petitioner had initially paid the tax but filed an appeal only against the penalty. However, the second respondent rejected the appeal, claiming that the penalty alone could not be challenged. The court found this rejection inappropriate, noting that the petitioner had fulfilled their tax liability and was within their rights to contest the penalty. The court set aside the second respondent’s rejection, directing them to take the appeal on record and issue a decision on its merits. The authorities were instructed to provide the petitioner with sufficient opportunity to present their case.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 21.03.2023 passed by the 1st respondent.
2. Mr. C.Harsha Raj, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the present case, the show cause notice dated 20.02.2023 was issued to the petitioner. Thereafter, the impugned assessment order dated 21.03.2023 was passed by the 1st respondent, wherein the tax and penalty were imposed against the petitioner. Pursuant to the said impugned assessment order, only the tax amount was paid by the petitioner. With regard to the imposition of penalty, an appeal was filed by the petitioner. However, the said appeal was rejected, by the 2nd respondent, as not maintainable. Hence, without any other option, this petition has been filed challenging the impugned assessment order passed by the 1st respondent.
4. In reply, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the notice was issued to the petitioner and thereafter, the impugned order was passed by imposing tax and penalty. Subsequent to the said order, the tax was paid by the petitioner and the appeal was filed only against the penalty imposed by the respondents. Hence, he fairly requests this Court to issue appropriate direction to the 2nd respondent to take the appeal on record.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents and also perused the materials available on record.
6. In the present case, though the show cause notice was issued and impugned assessment order was passed by imposing the tax and penalty, the petitioner has paid the tax and the challenge was made only against the penalty imposed by the respondents. However, the 2nd respondent has rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground that the penalty alone cannot be challenged. Therefore, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order.
7. In view of the above, since the petitioner has already paid the entire tax amount and filed an appeal only against the penalty imposed by the respondents, it is not proper for the 2nd respondent to reject the said appeal vide intimation dated 07.02.2024. Hence, this Court is inclined to direct the 2nd respondent to take the appeal on record. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-
(i) The intimation dated 07.02.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent is set aside.
(ii) The 2nd respondent is directed to take the appeal on record and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after providing an sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible.
8. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
Author Bio
