PNB fraud due to failure of internal control, says RBI.:      Celeb jeweller Nirav Modi named in PNB’s $1.77-b fraud. Bank suspends 10 officers, lodges complaint with CBI; more banks may be hit. :      Bombay High Court in a hearing on 6th Feb, 2018 says GST regime is not user friendly. :      GST Network Chairman Ajay Bhushan return simplification panel to meet industry this week to simplify the return filing process.:    Finance Secretary Hasmukh Adhia said the Government stares at a Rs 50,000 crore GST revenue shortfall in the current fiscal. :    E-Way Bill which was to be rolled-out on 1st Feb is deferred to month-end due to technical glitches.:      TN raked in 22% more GST at Rs 23,318 crore between Jul-Dec 2017, against Rs 19,018 crore under VAT in the corresponding period the previous year. :      MoS,Corp Affairs PP Chaudhary says in Rajya Sabha that Govt has detected GST evasion of Rs 5.70 Crores in 16 cases during Jul-Nov 2017 - 6th Feb 2018. :      FM, Arun Jaitley says that States are not in favour of bringing the petroleum products under GST. :      The Finance Secretary, Hasmukh Adhia says out of 7 lakh tax payers who opted for composition scheme 5 lakhs had a turnover less than Rs 5 lakhs pa, though the exemption limit is upto Rs 20 lakhs. :     
×

Warning

JUser: :_load: Unable to load user with ID: 7356

Madras High Court : Adhar Digital Vision Pvt. Limited, Vs. 1. The State of Tamilnadu 2. The Joint Commissioner (CT), 3. The Commercial Tax Officer, Roving Squad, V, 4. Enforcement (North), Chennai : 4th January, 2017

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

Dated:  04.01.2017

Coram

The Honourable Mr.JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

Writ Petition No.178 of 2017
& WMP Nos.173 and 174 of 2017

Adhar Digital Vision Pvt. Limited,
    ....  Petitioner

                Vs.

1.  The State of Tamilnadu
 by its Secretary,
 Commercial Tax Department,

2.  The Joint Commissioner (CT),
 Chennai (North) Division
 III Floor, PAPJM Buildings,
 No.1, Greams Road, Chennai - 6.

3.  The Commercial Tax Officer,
 Roving Squad, V,
 Enforcement (North), Chennai - 6.
         ....  Respondents


PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the second respondent in R.P.89/2016 dated 20.12.2016 and to quash the same.

        For Petitioner    :  Mr.J.Srinivasa Mohan
        For Respondents: Mr.K.Venkatesh


O R D E R

    1.  Issue notice.  Mr.K.Venkatesh, accepts notice on behalf of respondents.


    2.  After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner says that since, a remedy by way of a second revision, as provided under Section 57 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, is available, the petitioner will take its chance, qua the impugned order, by triggering the said remedy.


    2.1. Counsel for the petitioner, however, seeks two (2) directions: first, two (2) out of three (3) vehicles, which carried the set-top boxes and are in the custody of the respondents, be released. In this connection, learned counsel further says that, if, storage space is required, the petitioner can provide such space to the respondents for storing the set-top boxes.


    2.2.  Second, which is a direction sought in the alternative, that the, set-top boxes be released upon payment of 50% of the tax imposed and for the remaining 50% of the tax, the petitioner be permitted to furnish a bank guarantee.


    3.  Having regard to the aforesaid, the Writ Petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned authority by way of a second revision petition.


    3.1.  The respondents, will, however, forthwith release the subject vehicles, which hold the set-top boxes.


    4.  In so far as the other direction is concerned, that is, with regard to release of set-top boxes upon payment of tax, I have put to Mr.Venkatesh, who appears on advance notice, as to whether the mode and manner of payment of tax, as indicated above, would be acceptable to the respondents.


    4.1.  Mr.Venkatesh says, that if, the mode and manner, as suggested by the petitioner is taken forward, in point of fact, the respondents would release the subject set-top boxes.


    5.  Accordingly, the respondents are directed to release the set-top boxes as well, in case, 50% of the tax is deposited by the petitioner and, qua the balance 50% of the tax, bank guarantee of a Nationalised Bank, is furnished.


    5.1.  In the event, this option is not exercised by the petitioner, respondents, if they so desire, shall call upon the petitioner to provide a storage space for the set-top boxes.


    5.2. Needless to say, in such eventuality, the petitioner will hold the set-top boxes in trust for the respondents, subject to further directions, if any, that may be issued by an appropriate forum in that behalf.


    6.  Resultantly, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.  However, there will be no order as to costs.
               

RAJIV SHAKDHER,J.

04.01.2017


sl

Note:  Issue order copy today (04.01.2017)

To
1.  The Secretary, State of Tamilnadu
 Commercial Tax Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.

2.  The Joint Commissioner (CT), Chennai (North) Division
 III Floor, PAPJM Buildings, No.1, Greams Road, Chennai - 6.

3.  The Commercial Tax Officer,
 Roving Squad, V, Enforcement (North), Chennai - 6.
   

Additional Info

  • Date Range: Wednesday, 04 January 2017
  • Court/Authority: High Court
  • Tax Type: Sales/Comrcl/TradeTax/VAT/CST
  • Petitioner/Appellant: Adhar Digital Vision Pvt. Limited, Vs. 1. The State of Tamilnadu 2. The Joint Commissioner (CT), 3. The Commercial Tax Officer, Roving Squad, V, 4. Enforcement (North), Chennai
  • Respondent: Adhar Digital Vision Pvt. Limited, Vs. 1. The State of Tamilnadu 2. The Joint Commissioner (CT), 3. The Commercial Tax Officer, Roving Squad, V, 4. Enforcement (North), Chennai
  • Appl no. or Appl year: Writ Petition No.178 of 2017 & WMP Nos.173 and 174 of 2017
  • Supreme Court Location: Delhi
  • High Court Location: Madras High Court
  • AAR Location: Delhi
  • Authority: Supreme Court

Seven questions to know if you 

are paying taxes 

correctly?

If you are the CFO or the Tax Head you ought to read this. Click Here

Our Main Services 

in Indirect Taxes

 

  • Business structuring and tax planning
  • Review of end-to-end business processes for indirect taxes
  • Strategy to prevent litigation, representation and litigation support
  • Tax compliance and tax control framework
  • Support on specific issues


 

Brief update on CESTAT judgements passed during June 2016 to July 2016. Please note this update is not a summary of the cases but only leads on important issues decided. The links to the judgments are also provided for the full text.

Click here for update

Go to top