9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the reasons assigned by the learned Judge for allowing the writ petition and finds no merit in the writ appeal - appeal dismissed. - W.A(MD)No.249 of 2012 and M.P(MD)No.2 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 7-2-2018 - MR. M.SATHYANARAYANAN AND MRS. R.HEMALATHA, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr.M.Murugan, Government Advocate. For The Respondent : Mr.K.Vadivelu, for Mr.M.Md.Ibrahim Ali. JUDGMENT [Judgment of the Court was delivered by M. SATHYANARAYANAN, J. ] The Revenue is the appellant and challenging the quashment of the notice, dated 301.08.2005, issued by the appellant/sole respondent in the writ petition, the present writ appeal is filed. 2. A perusal of the impugned order would disclose that Mr.M.Md.Ibrahim Ali, learned couns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner that challenging the notice issued by the respondent dated 24.12.2002, he filed W.P.No.1147 of 2003 and the same is pending before the Principal Seat of this Court and as such, it is not open to the appellant/Revenue to issue another notice for bringing the movable property for public auction. (ii) The learned Judge, after taking note of the rival submissions and has also taking into consideration the order, dated 27.08.2004, made in W.P(MD)No.787 of 2004 [ S.Manikandamariappan v. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Ettayapuram, Tuticorin District ], found that the writ petitioner was permitted to pay a sum of ₹ 53,860/- within a period of one week from the date of order, on 27.08.2004 and the balance of ₹ 3,50,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the absence of any challenge made to the said order, the impugned notice, demanding levy of interest is unsustainable, and accordingly, allowed the writ petition. The Revenue, challenging the said order, came forward to file this writ appeal. 4. As rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge, once the petitioner has been permitted to pay the arrears in instalments, in compliance of the order, dated 27.08.2004, made in W.P(MD)No.787 of 2004 and in the absence of any challenge made to the said order and thereby it has reached its finality, the impugned demand notice with regard to levy of interest, in the considered opinion of this Court, is unsustainable. 5. This Court, on an independent application of mind to the materials plac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
