9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 424 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRevision petition - Release of detained goods - revision petition returned contending that there is a delay in filing the same and that the writ petition filed by the petitioner - HELD THAT - The second respondent is not justified in returning the revision on the reason that it is time barred, especially when this Court has specifically directed the Revisional Authority to consider the contentions raised by the petitioner and pass a speaking order in the revision petition. It is also factually incorrect to say that the above writ petition filed before this Court in M/S. EIS TECHINFRA SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI 2017 (7) TMI 1332 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , is pending as on date of passing of the proceedings dated 11.07.2018. Therefore, the second respondent is not justified in returning the revision petition. The petitioner shall represent the revision petition with a copy of the order passed by this Court in M/S. EIS TECHINFRA SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such revision, the second respondent shall pass orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law - Petition allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
1. Mandamus sought to direct admission of revision petition. 2. Challenge of goods detention notice. 3. Delay in filing revision petition and return of the same. 4. Justification of returning the revision petition by the second respondent. Analysis: 1. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the second respondent to admit the revision petition dated 29.12.2017 and pass orders as per the court's directions in a previous case. The court had directed the Revisional Authority to consider all contentions raised by the petitioner and pass a speaking order. The second respondent had returned the revision petition citing a delay in filing and the pending writ petition. However, the court found this action unjustified based on the previous order and allowed the writ petition. 2. The petitioner had initially challenged a goods detention notice in a previous writ petition, which was disposed of by the court on 26.07.2017. The petitioner contended that the goods in question were imported goods used as industrial inputs for Information Technologies Companies, liable to be taxed at 5%. The court directed the Revisional Authority to consider all contentions, including the nature of the goods and the applicable tax rate. 3. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a revision petition dated 29.12.2017, which was returned by the second respondent on 11.07.2018, citing a delay in filing and the pending writ petition. The court, upon reviewing the facts and the previous order, found the return of the revision petition unjustified. The court noted that the writ petition was not pending at the time of returning the revision petition and directed the petitioner to represent the revision petition within two weeks. 4. The court held that the second respondent was not justified in returning the revision petition due to being time-barred, especially when the court had directed the Revisional Authority to consider all contentions raised by the petitioner. The court ordered the petitioner to represent the revision petition with a copy of the previous order within two weeks, and the second respondent to pass orders on the merits within six weeks thereafter, without considering the period of limitation.
|
