M/S.misons Leathers Limited v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Tamil Nadu Iv, Chennai – 600 034

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 06.07.2017Coram The Hon'ble Mr.Justice T.S.Sivagnanam Writ Petition Nos.7658 and 7659 of 2003and W.P.M.P.No.9848 of 2004 M/s.Misons Leathers Limited,13, Kumarappa Street,Periamet, Chennai – 600 003.Rep by its DirectorSri. A.Md.Anwar Basha...Petitioner in both WPs Vs. 1.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Tamil Nadu IV, Chennai – 600 034. 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle IV (3), Chennai – 600 034. ...Respondents in both WPs Prayer in W.P.No. 7658 of 2003: Writ Petition, filed underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writof Certiorarified Manadamus, to call for the records of thepetitioner on the file of the second respondent in GIR No MI-64/95-96 and quash the impugned order, dated 08.04.2002 andconsequently direct the second respondent to extend the benefitof the KVSS, 1998 for the Assessment year 1995-96. Prayer in W.P.No. 7659 of 2003: Writ Petition, filed underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writof Certiorarified Manadamus, to call for the records of thepetitioner on the file of the first respondent and quash theimpugned order, dated 28.07.2000 and consequently, to direct thefirst respondent to grant the benefit of the KVSS, 1998 for theAssessment year 1995-96. In both WPs For Respondents : Mrs.Hema Murali Krishnan Standing Counsel https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ COMMON O R D E R Heard Mr.S.Sridhar, the learned counsel appearing forthe petitioner, and Mrs.Hema Murali Krishnan, the learnedStanding Counsel for the respondents. 2.The petitioner has filed the Writ Petition inW.P.No.7658 of 2003, challenging the order passed by the secondrespondent, dated 08.04.2002, withdrawing the benefit of the KarVivadh Samadhan Scheme (KVSS). Insofar as the other WritPetition is concerned, viz., W.P.No.7659 of 2003, the same hasbeen filed seeking to quash the order passed by the firstrespondent, dated 28.07.2000, whereby, the petitioner has beendirected to pay a sum of Rs.76,090/- and consequently, to directthe first respondent to grant the benefit of the KVSS, 1998 forthe Assessment year 1995-96. 3.The only reason for withdrawing the benefit of KVSS isby alleging that the petitioner has not paid the amount demandedwithin due date. Admittedly, the declaration filed by thepetitioner was processed and an order in Form No.3 dated06.05.1999 was issued, certifying that the petitioner paid thefull tax arrears, as demanded in the order, dated 19.03.1999,and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for immunity frominstituting any proceeding for prosecution under the Income TaxAct, 1961. Subsequently, it appears that, on account of somemistakes, committed in the calculation, Revision Form 2A, dated28.07.2000 was issued, stating that the petitioner has to payfurther sum of Rs.76,090 for being entitled to KVSS Scheme.The notice in Revised Form 2 A, was received by the petitioneron 03.08.2000, and within 30 days from the receipt of the sameon 31.08.2000, the petitioner has paid the said sum. However,the second respondent would state that the amount was not paidwithin 30 days from the date of the revised certificate.Similar is the stand taken in the counter affidavit by therespondents at para 10. 4.The elementary principle is that, limitation can becomputed only from the date of receipt of the order or theproceeding. A mere passing of order by an Officer and keeping iton his file will not be sufficient, but the order should becommunicated to the assessee or the person aggrieved.Therefore, this Court finds that the petitioner has compliedwith the condition and paid the money within a period of 30 daysfrom the date of receipt of the Revised Form Notice. Hence, theimpugned orders have been passed on a thorough misconception ofthe legal position. 4.The elementary principle is that, limitation can becomputed only from the date of receipt of the order or theproceeding. A mere passing of order by an Officer and keeping iton his file will not be sufficient, but the order should becommunicated to the assessee or the person aggrieved.Therefore, this Court finds that the petitioner has compliedwith the condition and paid the money within a period of 30 daysfrom the date of receipt of the Revised Form Notice. Hence, theimpugned orders have been passed on a thorough misconception ofthe legal position. 5.For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner is entitledto succeed in these Writ Petitions. Accordingly, both the WritPetitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. Nocosts. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant RegistrarsdTo1.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Tamil Nadu IV, Chennai – 600 034.2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle IV (3), Chennai – 600 034.+1 cc to M/s.Hema Muralikrishnan Advocate sr 47174+1 cc to M/s.Sridhar Advocate sr 47386Writ Petition Nos.7658 and 7659 of 2003mg(co)aa20/07/2017