Coimbatore Road Contractors Welfare Association, Coimbatore Versus Dr. C. Chandramouli
GST
2018 (2) TMI 1540 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – [2017] 1 GSTL 24 (Mad), 2018 (9) G. S. T. L. 361 (Mad.)
MADRAS HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 8-12-2017
Contempt Petition Nos. 2107 to 2112 of 2017
GST
MR. T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.
\nFor The Petitioner : Mr. V. Elangovan
\nFor The Respondent : Mrs.Narmadha Sampath, Special Government Pleader
\nCOMMON ORDER
\nThe petitioners are Contractors Welfare Association, who came before this Court by filing a batch of writ petitions for issuance of Writ of Mandamus for a direction upon the Secretary to Government, Highways and Minor ports Department Secretariat, Chennai to consider their representations dated 05. 0<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Taxes Department informed that the Government was in the process of discussing as to how the modality to be worked out. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n 15. 09. 2017, and gave liberty to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to pass an order on merits and in accordance with law. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Coimbatore Road Contractors Welfare Association, Coimbatore Versus Dr. C. ChandramouliGST2018 (2) TMI 1540 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – [2017] 1 GSTL 24 (Mad), 2018 (9) G. S. T. L. 361 (Mad.)MADRAS HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 8-12-2017Contempt Petition Nos. 2107 to 2112 of 2017 GSTMR. T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J. For The Petitioner : Mr. V. Elangovan … Continue reading “Coimbatore Road Contractors Welfare Association, Coimbatore Versus Dr. C. Chandramouli”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10552","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10552","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=10552"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10552\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=10552"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=10552"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=10552"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. The Court found that since the representations were pending before the authority, it would be appropriate to the respondent to respond them and give a reply. The Court ordered that the appropriate person, who would be in a position to reply is that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, because all the other authorities are Department of Highways and National Highways, etc., who will be not in a position to specifically address the issue pointed out by the petitioners.
\n4. Learned Government Advocate placed before this Court a copy of the Government Order in G. O. Ms. No. 264, Finance (Salaries) Department, dated 15. 09<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n7. If according to the Commissioner, he had nothing to do the matter, nothing prevented him to contend so. In fact, that was an observation made by the Court in more than two places in the order. Though the Court would be fully justified in initiating action for contempt, considering the sensitivity of the matter and the members of the petitioner\/Association, who are contractors, are put to hardship on account of the nebulous state of affairs, this Court is inclined to give one more opportunity to the respondent to consider the representations given by the petitioner\/Association and pass orders on merits and in acco<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n