Tvl.Maruthi Trading Corporation vs. The Assistant Commissioner (CT)

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Maruthi Trading Corporation, a registered contractor providing street light maintenance services, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 06.06.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Theni-I Circle. The petitioner reported a turnover of Rs. 1,09,10,226/- for the financial year 2021-2022. However, the second respondent, the Commissioner of Kodaikanal Municipality, had erroneously reported the petitioner's turnover as Rs. 2,30,73,400/-. This discrepancy led to the impugned assessment order demanding Rs. 3,62,19,700/-. The petitioner sought to quash this order and requested a re-assessment after being provided a reasonable opportunity to present their case, supported by a fresh certificate from the Municipality.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition. The impugned assessment order dated 06.06.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Theni-I Circle, was set aside. The Court directed the first respondent to redo the assessment for the year 2021-2022. This re-assessment is to be conducted after considering a fresh certificate issued by the second respondent (Kodaikanal Municipality) and after providing the petitioner with an adequate opportunity of hearing. The reasoning for this decision was based on the admission by the second respondent in its counter affidavit that a mistake had occurred in reporting the petitioner's turnover due to the error of its taxation consultant. The Court found this admission sufficient to warrant a fresh assessment with proper procedural safeguards. No costs were awarded.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment order dated 06.06.2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Theni-I Circle, is legally sustainable, considering the alleged turnover mismatch and the petitioner's claim of a procedural error in reporting by the Municipality? The petitioner argued that the assessment order was illegal and devoid of merits due to a significant turnover mismatch caused by an erroneous report from the Kodaikanal Municipality. The petitioner contended that they had approached the Municipality for a correction, and the Municipality, in its counter affidavit, admitted a mistake made by its taxation consultant in reporting the turnover to the first respondent. The petitioner sought a re-do of the assessment for the year 2021-22 after providing a reasonable opportunity. The revenue (represented by the Assistant Commissioner) did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, the Municipality, the second respondent, in its counter affidavit, admitted that its taxation consultant had mistakenly reported the petitioner's turnover to the first respondent, leading to the impugned order. The Municipality stated that the impugned order should be modified by the first respondent based on this admission.