M/S Kodai Automobiles Limited vs. The Authorized Offier
Held
The Court recorded the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the petitioner had approached the bank for an One Time Settlement (OTS), which was accepted by the respondent bank. Consequently, the writ petition had become infructuous. Based on this submission, the Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous. No costs were imposed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed. The Court did not delve into the merits of the original prayer concerning the release of property documents or the extension of time for payment, as the intervening settlement rendered the petition moot.
Facts
The petitioners, M/s.Kodai Automobiles Limited and S.G.Jayaraj Nadar and Son, filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus. They requested the Authorized Officer of Axis Bank Limited to release property documents without insisting on a revocation letter from the Deputy Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Tirunelveli Division, as per an One Time Settlement (OTS) offer. Alternatively, they sought an extension for the second installment payment under the OTS. The petition was filed against Axis Bank and GST authorities. The dispute arose from the conditions stipulated in the OTS settlement regarding the release of property documents.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court should issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent (Axis Bank) to release property documents to the first petitioner without requiring a revocation letter from the third respondent (Deputy Commissioner of CGST) as per the OTS settlement dated 28.09.2022? 2. Alternatively, whether the Court should direct the first respondent (Axis Bank) to extend the time for compliance with the second installment payment as per the OTS settlement schedule? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner sought the release of property documents or an extension of time for payment under the OTS. The specific requirement of a revocation letter from the GST authorities was a point of contention for the release of documents. The petitioner also sought an alternative relief of extending the payment deadline. Revenue/State's Contention: No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue or state respondents in the provided judgment excerpt.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 19.12.2022 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR and W.M.P.(MD)No.18708 of 2022 1.M/s.Kodai Automobiles Limited, Rep. by its Director, No.176-B/3, Trivandrum Road, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli – 627 002. 2.S.G.Jayaraj Nadar and Son, No.176B, Trivandrum Road, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli – 627 002. ... Petitioners Vs. 1.The Authorized officer, Axis Bank Limited, Southern Recovery Cell, 1st Floor, Old No.3, New No.3, Club House Road, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The Branch Manager, Axis Bank Limited, SN High Road, Opp. Schaffter High School, Tirunelveli – 627 001. 3.The Deputy Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Tirunelveli Division, Central Revenue Building, 2nd Floor, Tractor Street, NGO 'A' Colony, Tirunelveli – 627 007. 4.The Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Bibikulam, Madurai. ... Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constituti
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.