IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 7.4.2011 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.8908 of 2011 1 M/S.PRADEEP DRUG COMPANY LTD [ PETITIONER ] (NOW PART OF M/S.SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED) REP. BY MR.M.AYYAKKANNU AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY 268, LLOYDS ROAD CHENNAI-14. Vs 1 THE APPELLATE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (CT) IV VI TH FLOOR KURALAGAM ANNEXE CHENNAI-108. 2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) ROYAPETTAH II ASSESSMENT CIRCLE 46, GREENWAYS ROAD CHENNAI-28. [ RESPONDENTS ] Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorari calling for the records on the files of the first respondent in A.P.No.21/99 dated 13.10.10 and quash the same as being without jurisdiction, arbitrary and ultra vires the powers conferred on the first respondent by Section 31 of the TNGST Act, 1959 and hence invalid and illegal in so far as the said order gives directions to the second respondent to assess the turnover in the appropriate assessment years. For petitioner : Mr.C.Venkataraman For respondents : Mr.R.Mahadevan AGP (T) O R D E R The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the appellate authority, namely, the first respondent herein, had passed the impugned order, dated 13.10.2010, directing the assessing officer, the second respondent herein, to verify whether the excise duty in question, paid by the petitioner, is for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the previous assesment years and to assess the same in respect of the appropriate assessment years. He had further submitted that such a direction cannot be given by the first respondent, as he does not have the jurisdiction to do so, unless it is clarrified that the second respondent shall make the appropriate assessment for the previous years, as per law. 2. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that it is implied that the second respondent could make the assessment for the previous years only as per law, following the directions issued by the first respondent. 3. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned, it is made clear that any assessment made by the second respondent, in respect of the previous assessment years, as directed by the first respondent, shall be done only as per law. In view of the above clarification, since, no further orders are necessary, the writ petition stands closed. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2011 is closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar /True copy/ Sub. Asst. Registrar lan To: 1 THE APPELLATE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (CT) IV VI TH FLOOR KURALAGAM ANNEXE CHENNAI-108. 2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) ROYAPETTAH II ASSESSMENT CIRCLE 46, GREENWAYS ROAD CHENNAI-28. + 1 cc to the Special Government Pleader Sr.25269 + 1 cc to Mr.C. Venkatraman, Sr.24545 Writ Petition No.8908 of 2011 TS(CO) Eu 27.4.11 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/