Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital Represented by Its Dean Chennai Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Secretary Commercial Taxes and Registration Department Chennai and Others - Citation 934052 - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital Represented by Its Dean Chennai Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Secretary Commercial Taxes and Registration Department Chennai and Others - Citation 934052 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '934052',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.22679, 22683, 22680, 22681, 22682 of 2012 &amp; M.P.No.1 of 2012 ',
			'appellant' => 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, Represented by Its Dean, Chennai',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, Represented by Its Dean, Chennai Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Constitution of India - Article 226 &ndash; Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - Section 2(33) -',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'For the Petitioner: Ms. G. Sumitra, Advocate. For the Respondents: P.H. Arvind Pandiyan Additional Advocate General for A.R. Jayapratap, Government Advocate (Taxes).',
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Chennai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2012-09-11',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'M. JAICHANDREN',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">(<strong>Prayer:</strong> Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the impugned proceedings of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent herein made in TIN/33570887231/2011-12 dated 27.04.2012 and QUASH the same and consequently restraining the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent herein from levying and collecting taxes on rendering diagnostic services on X-Ray films, CT films, MRI films and medical gases for impatient treatments and other allied medical services to the patients at the petitioner's medical college hospital.)<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2.The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the professional services rendered by the Doctors of the petitioner Medical college hospital, under the nature of diagnostic services on X-Ray Films and supply of medical gases and implants, which are used during the course of treatment to patients, would not amount to transfer of property in goods or an incident of contract of service, under the scope of 'works contract', as per Article 366 (29A) (b) of the Constitution of India and under Section 2(33) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Therefore, the impugned notice issued by the third respondent, relating to the assessment year 2011-2012, under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, is arbitrary and illegal and without the authority of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. t this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition,Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, had submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to raise all the grounds available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, before the third respondent, while filing its reply to the impugned notice issued by the third respondent. Thereafter, it is for the third respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law. He had further submitted that till such orders are passed by the third respondent no action would be taken against the petitioner, by the respondents, for recovering the tax and penalty proposed, as per the impugned notice of the third respondent, dated 27.04.2012.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. In view of the said submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner is directed to file its objections, if any, to the impugned notice of the third respondent,dated 27.04.2012, raising all the issues available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the objections to be filed by the petitioner, the third respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing, to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks thereafter. However, it is made clear that no coercive steps would be taken by the respondents to collect the taxes and the penalty proposed by the impugned notice, issued by the third respondent, till final orders are passed by the third respondent, based on the said notice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'sree-balaji-medical-college-hospital-represented-dean-chennai-vs-commercial-registration',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '934052',
		(int) 1 => 'sree-balaji-medical-college-hospital-represented-dean-chennai-vs-commercial-registration'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital Represented by Its Dean Chennai Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Secretary Commercial Taxes and Registration Department Chennai and Others - Citation 934052 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '934052',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.22679, 22683, 22680, 22681, 22682 of 2012 &amp; M.P.No.1 of 2012 ',
		'appellant' => 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, Represented by Its Dean, Chennai',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, Represented by Its Dean, Chennai Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Constitution of India - Article 226 &ndash; Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - Section 2(33) -',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'For the Petitioner: Ms. G. Sumitra, Advocate. For the Respondents: P.H. Arvind Pandiyan Additional Advocate General for A.R. Jayapratap, Government Advocate (Taxes).',
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Chennai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2012-09-11',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'M. JAICHANDREN',
		'judgement' => '<p>(<strong>Prayer:</strong> Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the impugned proceedings of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent herein made in TIN/33570887231/2011-12 dated 27.04.2012 and QUASH the same and consequently restraining the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent herein from levying and collecting taxes on rendering diagnostic services on X-Ray films, CT films, MRI films and medical gases for impatient treatments and other allied medical services to the patients at the petitioner's medical college hospital.)<p> 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.</p><p> 2.The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the professional services rendered by the Doctors of the petitioner Medical college hospital, under the nature of diagnostic services on X-Ray Films and supply of medical gases and implants, which are used during the course of treatment to patients, would not amount to transfer of property in goods or an incident of contract of service, under the scope of 'works contract', as per Article 366 (29A) (b) of the Constitution of India and under Section 2(33) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Therefore, the impugned notice issued by the third respondent, relating to the assessment year 2011-2012, under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, is arbitrary and illegal and without the authority of law.</p><p> 3. t this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition,Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, had submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to raise all the grounds available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, before the third respondent, while filing its reply to the impugned notice issued by the third respondent. Thereafter, it is for the third respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law. He had further submitted that till such orders are passed by the third respondent no action would be taken against the petitioner, by the respondents, for recovering the tax and penalty proposed, as per the impugned notice of the third respondent, dated 27.04.2012.</p><p> 4. In view of the said submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner is directed to file its objections, if any, to the impugned notice of the third respondent,dated 27.04.2012, raising all the issues available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the objections to be filed by the petitioner, the third respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing, to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks thereafter. However, it is made clear that no coercive steps would be taken by the respondents to collect the taxes and the penalty proposed by the impugned notice, issued by the third respondent, till final orders are passed by the third respondent, based on the said notice.</p><p> The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'sree-balaji-medical-college-hospital-represented-dean-chennai-vs-commercial-registration'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '934052',
	(int) 1 => 'sree-balaji-medical-college-hospital-represented-dean-chennai-vs-commercial-registration'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/934052/sree-balaji-medical-college-hospital-represented-dean-chennai-vs-commercial-registration'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital Represented by Its Dean Chennai Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Secretary Commercial Taxes and Registration Department Chennai and Others - Citation 934052 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '934052',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.22679, 22683, 22680, 22681, 22682 of 2012 &amp; M.P.No.1 of 2012 ',
			'appellant' => 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, Represented by Its Dean, Chennai',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, Represented by Its Dean, Chennai Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Constitution of India - Article 226 &ndash; Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - Section 2(33) -',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'For the Petitioner: Ms. G. Sumitra, Advocate. For the Respondents: P.H. Arvind Pandiyan Additional Advocate General for A.R. Jayapratap, Government Advocate (Taxes).',
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Chennai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2012-09-11',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'M. JAICHANDREN',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">(<strong>Prayer:</strong> Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the impugned proceedings of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent herein made in TIN/33570887231/2011-12 dated 27.04.2012 and QUASH the same and consequently restraining the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent herein from levying and collecting taxes on rendering diagnostic services on X-Ray films, CT films, MRI films and medical gases for impatient treatments and other allied medical services to the patients at the petitioner's medical college hospital.)<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2.The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the professional services rendered by the Doctors of the petitioner Medical college hospital, under the nature of diagnostic services on X-Ray Films and supply of medical gases and implants, which are used during the course of treatment to patients, would not amount to transfer of property in goods or an incident of contract of service, under the scope of 'works contract', as per Article 366 (29A) (b) of the Constitution of India and under Section 2(33) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Therefore, the impugned notice issued by the third respondent, relating to the assessment year 2011-2012, under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, is arbitrary and illegal and without the authority of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. t this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition,Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, had submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to raise all the grounds available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, before the third respondent, while filing its reply to the impugned notice issued by the third respondent. Thereafter, it is for the third respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law. He had further submitted that till such orders are passed by the third respondent no action would be taken against the petitioner, by the respondents, for recovering the tax and penalty proposed, as per the impugned notice of the third respondent, dated 27.04.2012.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. In view of the said submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner is directed to file its objections, if any, to the impugned notice of the third respondent,dated 27.04.2012, raising all the issues available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the objections to be filed by the petitioner, the third respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing, to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks thereafter. However, it is made clear that no coercive steps would be taken by the respondents to collect the taxes and the penalty proposed by the impugned notice, issued by the third respondent, till final orders are passed by the third respondent, based on the said notice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'sree-balaji-medical-college-hospital-represented-dean-chennai-vs-commercial-registration',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '934052',
		(int) 1 => 'sree-balaji-medical-college-hospital-represented-dean-chennai-vs-commercial-registration'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital Represented by Its Dean Chennai Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Secretary Commercial Taxes and Registration Department Chennai and Others - Citation 934052 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '934052',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.22679, 22683, 22680, 22681, 22682 of 2012 &amp; M.P.No.1 of 2012 ',
		'appellant' => 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, Represented by Its Dean, Chennai',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, Represented by Its Dean, Chennai Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Constitution of India - Article 226 &ndash; Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - Section 2(33) -',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'For the Petitioner: Ms. G. Sumitra, Advocate. For the Respondents: P.H. Arvind Pandiyan Additional Advocate General for A.R. Jayapratap, Government Advocate (Taxes).',
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Chennai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2012-09-11',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'M. JAICHANDREN',
		'judgement' => '<p>(<strong>Prayer:</strong> Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the impugned proceedings of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent herein made in TIN/33570887231/2011-12 dated 27.04.2012 and QUASH the same and consequently restraining the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent herein from levying and collecting taxes on rendering diagnostic services on X-Ray films, CT films, MRI films and medical gases for impatient treatments and other allied medical services to the patients at the petitioner's medical college hospital.)<p> 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.</p><p> 2.The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the professional services rendered by the Doctors of the petitioner Medical college hospital, under the nature of diagnostic services on X-Ray Films and supply of medical gases and implants, which are used during the course of treatment to patients, would not amount to transfer of property in goods or an incident of contract of service, under the scope of 'works contract', as per Article 366 (29A) (b) of the Constitution of India and under Section 2(33) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Therefore, the impugned notice issued by the third respondent, relating to the assessment year 2011-2012, under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, is arbitrary and illegal and without the authority of law.</p><p> 3. t this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition,Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, had submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to raise all the grounds available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, before the third respondent, while filing its reply to the impugned notice issued by the third respondent. Thereafter, it is for the third respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law. He had further submitted that till such orders are passed by the third respondent no action would be taken against the petitioner, by the respondents, for recovering the tax and penalty proposed, as per the impugned notice of the third respondent, dated 27.04.2012.</p><p> 4. In view of the said submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner is directed to file its objections, if any, to the impugned notice of the third respondent,dated 27.04.2012, raising all the issues available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the objections to be filed by the petitioner, the third respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing, to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks thereafter. However, it is made clear that no coercive steps would be taken by the respondents to collect the taxes and the penalty proposed by the impugned notice, issued by the third respondent, till final orders are passed by the third respondent, based on the said notice.</p><p> The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'sree-balaji-medical-college-hospital-represented-dean-chennai-vs-commercial-registration'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '934052',
	(int) 1 => 'sree-balaji-medical-college-hospital-represented-dean-chennai-vs-commercial-registration'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/934052/sree-balaji-medical-college-hospital-represented-dean-chennai-vs-commercial-registration'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

constitution of india - article 226 – tamil nadu value added tax act, 2006 - section 2(33) -

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital Represented by Its Dean Chennai Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Secretary Commercial Taxes and Registration Department Chennai and Others - Citation 934052 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '934052',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.22679, 22683, 22680, 22681, 22682 of 2012 &amp; M.P.No.1 of 2012 ',
			'appellant' => 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, Represented by Its Dean, Chennai',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, Represented by Its Dean, Chennai Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Constitution of India - Article 226 &ndash; Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - Section 2(33) -',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'For the Petitioner: Ms. G. Sumitra, Advocate. For the Respondents: P.H. Arvind Pandiyan Additional Advocate General for A.R. Jayapratap, Government Advocate (Taxes).',
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Chennai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2012-09-11',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'M. JAICHANDREN',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">(<strong>Prayer:</strong> Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the impugned proceedings of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent herein made in TIN/33570887231/2011-12 dated 27.04.2012 and QUASH the same and consequently restraining the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent herein from levying and collecting taxes on rendering diagnostic services on X-Ray films, CT films, MRI films and medical gases for impatient treatments and other allied medical services to the patients at the petitioner's medical college hospital.)<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2.The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the professional services rendered by the Doctors of the petitioner Medical college hospital, under the nature of diagnostic services on X-Ray Films and supply of medical gases and implants, which are used during the course of treatment to patients, would not amount to transfer of property in goods or an incident of contract of service, under the scope of 'works contract', as per Article 366 (29A) (b) of the Constitution of India and under Section 2(33) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Therefore, the impugned notice issued by the third respondent, relating to the assessment year 2011-2012, under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, is arbitrary and illegal and without the authority of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. t this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition,Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, had submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to raise all the grounds available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, before the third respondent, while filing its reply to the impugned notice issued by the third respondent. Thereafter, it is for the third respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law. He had further submitted that till such orders are passed by the third respondent no action would be taken against the petitioner, by the respondents, for recovering the tax and penalty proposed, as per the impugned notice of the third respondent, dated 27.04.2012.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. In view of the said submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner is directed to file its objections, if any, to the impugned notice of the third respondent,dated 27.04.2012, raising all the issues available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the objections to be filed by the petitioner, the third respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing, to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks thereafter. However, it is made clear that no coercive steps would be taken by the respondents to collect the taxes and the penalty proposed by the impugned notice, issued by the third respondent, till final orders are passed by the third respondent, based on the said notice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'sree-balaji-medical-college-hospital-represented-dean-chennai-vs-commercial-registration',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '934052',
		(int) 1 => 'sree-balaji-medical-college-hospital-represented-dean-chennai-vs-commercial-registration'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital Represented by Its Dean Chennai Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Secretary Commercial Taxes and Registration Department Chennai and Others - Citation 934052 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '934052',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.22679, 22683, 22680, 22681, 22682 of 2012 &amp; M.P.No.1 of 2012 ',
		'appellant' => 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, Represented by Its Dean, Chennai',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, Represented by Its Dean, Chennai Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Constitution of India - Article 226 &ndash; Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - Section 2(33) -',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'For the Petitioner: Ms. G. Sumitra, Advocate. For the Respondents: P.H. Arvind Pandiyan Additional Advocate General for A.R. Jayapratap, Government Advocate (Taxes).',
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Chennai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2012-09-11',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'M. JAICHANDREN',
		'judgement' => '<p>(<strong>Prayer:</strong> Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the impugned proceedings of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent herein made in TIN/33570887231/2011-12 dated 27.04.2012 and QUASH the same and consequently restraining the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent herein from levying and collecting taxes on rendering diagnostic services on X-Ray films, CT films, MRI films and medical gases for impatient treatments and other allied medical services to the patients at the petitioner's medical college hospital.)<p> 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.</p><p> 2.The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the professional services rendered by the Doctors of the petitioner Medical college hospital, under the nature of diagnostic services on X-Ray Films and supply of medical gases and implants, which are used during the course of treatment to patients, would not amount to transfer of property in goods or an incident of contract of service, under the scope of 'works contract', as per Article 366 (29A) (b) of the Constitution of India and under Section 2(33) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Therefore, the impugned notice issued by the third respondent, relating to the assessment year 2011-2012, under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, is arbitrary and illegal and without the authority of law.</p><p> 3. t this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition,Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, had submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to raise all the grounds available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, before the third respondent, while filing its reply to the impugned notice issued by the third respondent. Thereafter, it is for the third respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law. He had further submitted that till such orders are passed by the third respondent no action would be taken against the petitioner, by the respondents, for recovering the tax and penalty proposed, as per the impugned notice of the third respondent, dated 27.04.2012.</p><p> 4. In view of the said submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner is directed to file its objections, if any, to the impugned notice of the third respondent,dated 27.04.2012, raising all the issues available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the objections to be filed by the petitioner, the third respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing, to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks thereafter. However, it is made clear that no coercive steps would be taken by the respondents to collect the taxes and the penalty proposed by the impugned notice, issued by the third respondent, till final orders are passed by the third respondent, based on the said notice.</p><p> The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'sree-balaji-medical-college-hospital-represented-dean-chennai-vs-commercial-registration'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '934052',
	(int) 1 => 'sree-balaji-medical-college-hospital-represented-dean-chennai-vs-commercial-registration'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/934052/sree-balaji-medical-college-hospital-represented-dean-chennai-vs-commercial-registration'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital Represented by Its Dean Chennai Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Secretary Commercial Taxes and Registration Department Chennai and Others - Citation 934052 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '934052',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.22679, 22683, 22680, 22681, 22682 of 2012 &amp; M.P.No.1 of 2012 ',
			'appellant' => 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, Represented by Its Dean, Chennai',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, Represented by Its Dean, Chennai Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Constitution of India - Article 226 &ndash; Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - Section 2(33) -',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'For the Petitioner: Ms. G. Sumitra, Advocate. For the Respondents: P.H. Arvind Pandiyan Additional Advocate General for A.R. Jayapratap, Government Advocate (Taxes).',
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Chennai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2012-09-11',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'M. JAICHANDREN',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">(<strong>Prayer:</strong> Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the impugned proceedings of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent herein made in TIN/33570887231/2011-12 dated 27.04.2012 and QUASH the same and consequently restraining the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent herein from levying and collecting taxes on rendering diagnostic services on X-Ray films, CT films, MRI films and medical gases for impatient treatments and other allied medical services to the patients at the petitioner's medical college hospital.)<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2.The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the professional services rendered by the Doctors of the petitioner Medical college hospital, under the nature of diagnostic services on X-Ray Films and supply of medical gases and implants, which are used during the course of treatment to patients, would not amount to transfer of property in goods or an incident of contract of service, under the scope of 'works contract', as per Article 366 (29A) (b) of the Constitution of India and under Section 2(33) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Therefore, the impugned notice issued by the third respondent, relating to the assessment year 2011-2012, under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, is arbitrary and illegal and without the authority of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. t this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition,Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, had submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to raise all the grounds available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, before the third respondent, while filing its reply to the impugned notice issued by the third respondent. Thereafter, it is for the third respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law. He had further submitted that till such orders are passed by the third respondent no action would be taken against the petitioner, by the respondents, for recovering the tax and penalty proposed, as per the impugned notice of the third respondent, dated 27.04.2012.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. In view of the said submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner is directed to file its objections, if any, to the impugned notice of the third respondent,dated 27.04.2012, raising all the issues available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the objections to be filed by the petitioner, the third respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing, to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks thereafter. However, it is made clear that no coercive steps would be taken by the respondents to collect the taxes and the penalty proposed by the impugned notice, issued by the third respondent, till final orders are passed by the third respondent, based on the said notice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'sree-balaji-medical-college-hospital-represented-dean-chennai-vs-commercial-registration',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '934052',
		(int) 1 => 'sree-balaji-medical-college-hospital-represented-dean-chennai-vs-commercial-registration'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital Represented by Its Dean Chennai Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Secretary Commercial Taxes and Registration Department Chennai and Others - Citation 934052 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '934052',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.22679, 22683, 22680, 22681, 22682 of 2012 &amp; M.P.No.1 of 2012 ',
		'appellant' => 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, Represented by Its Dean, Chennai',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, Represented by Its Dean, Chennai Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Constitution of India - Article 226 &ndash; Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - Section 2(33) -',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'For the Petitioner: Ms. G. Sumitra, Advocate. For the Respondents: P.H. Arvind Pandiyan Additional Advocate General for A.R. Jayapratap, Government Advocate (Taxes).',
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Chennai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2012-09-11',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'M. JAICHANDREN',
		'judgement' => '<p>(<strong>Prayer:</strong> Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the impugned proceedings of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent herein made in TIN/33570887231/2011-12 dated 27.04.2012 and QUASH the same and consequently restraining the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent herein from levying and collecting taxes on rendering diagnostic services on X-Ray films, CT films, MRI films and medical gases for impatient treatments and other allied medical services to the patients at the petitioner's medical college hospital.)<p> 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.</p><p> 2.The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the professional services rendered by the Doctors of the petitioner Medical college hospital, under the nature of diagnostic services on X-Ray Films and supply of medical gases and implants, which are used during the course of treatment to patients, would not amount to transfer of property in goods or an incident of contract of service, under the scope of 'works contract', as per Article 366 (29A) (b) of the Constitution of India and under Section 2(33) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Therefore, the impugned notice issued by the third respondent, relating to the assessment year 2011-2012, under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, is arbitrary and illegal and without the authority of law.</p><p> 3. t this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition,Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, had submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to raise all the grounds available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, before the third respondent, while filing its reply to the impugned notice issued by the third respondent. Thereafter, it is for the third respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law. He had further submitted that till such orders are passed by the third respondent no action would be taken against the petitioner, by the respondents, for recovering the tax and penalty proposed, as per the impugned notice of the third respondent, dated 27.04.2012.</p><p> 4. In view of the said submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner is directed to file its objections, if any, to the impugned notice of the third respondent,dated 27.04.2012, raising all the issues available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the objections to be filed by the petitioner, the third respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing, to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks thereafter. However, it is made clear that no coercive steps would be taken by the respondents to collect the taxes and the penalty proposed by the impugned notice, issued by the third respondent, till final orders are passed by the third respondent, based on the said notice.</p><p> The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'sree-balaji-medical-college-hospital-represented-dean-chennai-vs-commercial-registration'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '934052',
	(int) 1 => 'sree-balaji-medical-college-hospital-represented-dean-chennai-vs-commercial-registration'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/934052/sree-balaji-medical-college-hospital-represented-dean-chennai-vs-commercial-registration'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(prayer: writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the impugned proceedings of the 3rd respondent herein made in tin/33570887231/2011-12 dated 27.04.2012 and quash the same and consequently restraining the 3rd respondent herein from levying and collecting taxes on rendering diagnostic services on x-ray films, ct films, mri films and medical gases for impatient treatments and other allied medical services to the patients at the petitioner's medical college hospital.) 1. heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and mr.p.h.arvind pandiyan, learned additional advocate general appearing for the respondents. 2.the main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the.....

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital Represented by Its Dean Chennai Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Secretary Commercial Taxes and Registration Department Chennai and Others - Citation 934052 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '934052',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.22679, 22683, 22680, 22681, 22682 of 2012 &amp; M.P.No.1 of 2012 ',
			'appellant' => 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, Represented by Its Dean, Chennai',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, Represented by Its Dean, Chennai Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Constitution of India - Article 226 &ndash; Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - Section 2(33) -',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'For the Petitioner: Ms. G. Sumitra, Advocate. For the Respondents: P.H. Arvind Pandiyan Additional Advocate General for A.R. Jayapratap, Government Advocate (Taxes).',
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Chennai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2012-09-11',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'M. JAICHANDREN',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">(<strong>Prayer:</strong> Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the impugned proceedings of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent herein made in TIN/33570887231/2011-12 dated 27.04.2012 and QUASH the same and consequently restraining the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent herein from levying and collecting taxes on rendering diagnostic services on X-Ray films, CT films, MRI films and medical gases for impatient treatments and other allied medical services to the patients at the petitioner's medical college hospital.)<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2.The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the professional services rendered by the Doctors of the petitioner Medical college hospital, under the nature of diagnostic services on X-Ray Films and supply of medical gases and implants, which are used during the course of treatment to patients, would not amount to transfer of property in goods or an incident of contract of service, under the scope of 'works contract', as per Article 366 (29A) (b) of the Constitution of India and under Section 2(33) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Therefore, the impugned notice issued by the third respondent, relating to the assessment year 2011-2012, under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, is arbitrary and illegal and without the authority of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. t this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition,Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, had submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to raise all the grounds available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, before the third respondent, while filing its reply to the impugned notice issued by the third respondent. Thereafter, it is for the third respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law. He had further submitted that till such orders are passed by the third respondent no action would be taken against the petitioner, by the respondents, for recovering the tax and penalty proposed, as per the impugned notice of the third respondent, dated 27.04.2012.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. In view of the said submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner is directed to file its objections, if any, to the impugned notice of the third respondent,dated 27.04.2012, raising all the issues available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the objections to be filed by the petitioner, the third respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing, to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks thereafter. However, it is made clear that no coercive steps would be taken by the respondents to collect the taxes and the penalty proposed by the impugned notice, issued by the third respondent, till final orders are passed by the third respondent, based on the said notice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'sree-balaji-medical-college-hospital-represented-dean-chennai-vs-commercial-registration',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '934052',
		(int) 1 => 'sree-balaji-medical-college-hospital-represented-dean-chennai-vs-commercial-registration'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital Represented by Its Dean Chennai Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Secretary Commercial Taxes and Registration Department Chennai and Others - Citation 934052 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '934052',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.22679, 22683, 22680, 22681, 22682 of 2012 &amp; M.P.No.1 of 2012 ',
		'appellant' => 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, Represented by Its Dean, Chennai',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, Represented by Its Dean, Chennai Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Constitution of India - Article 226 &ndash; Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - Section 2(33) -',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'For the Petitioner: Ms. G. Sumitra, Advocate. For the Respondents: P.H. Arvind Pandiyan Additional Advocate General for A.R. Jayapratap, Government Advocate (Taxes).',
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Chennai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2012-09-11',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'M. JAICHANDREN',
		'judgement' => '<p>(<strong>Prayer:</strong> Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the impugned proceedings of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent herein made in TIN/33570887231/2011-12 dated 27.04.2012 and QUASH the same and consequently restraining the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent herein from levying and collecting taxes on rendering diagnostic services on X-Ray films, CT films, MRI films and medical gases for impatient treatments and other allied medical services to the patients at the petitioner's medical college hospital.)<p> 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.</p><p> 2.The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the professional services rendered by the Doctors of the petitioner Medical college hospital, under the nature of diagnostic services on X-Ray Films and supply of medical gases and implants, which are used during the course of treatment to patients, would not amount to transfer of property in goods or an incident of contract of service, under the scope of 'works contract', as per Article 366 (29A) (b) of the Constitution of India and under Section 2(33) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Therefore, the impugned notice issued by the third respondent, relating to the assessment year 2011-2012, under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, is arbitrary and illegal and without the authority of law.</p><p> 3. t this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition,Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, had submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to raise all the grounds available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, before the third respondent, while filing its reply to the impugned notice issued by the third respondent. Thereafter, it is for the third respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law. He had further submitted that till such orders are passed by the third respondent no action would be taken against the petitioner, by the respondents, for recovering the tax and penalty proposed, as per the impugned notice of the third respondent, dated 27.04.2012.</p><p> 4. In view of the said submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner is directed to file its objections, if any, to the impugned notice of the third respondent,dated 27.04.2012, raising all the issues available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the objections to be filed by the petitioner, the third respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing, to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks thereafter. However, it is made clear that no coercive steps would be taken by the respondents to collect the taxes and the penalty proposed by the impugned notice, issued by the third respondent, till final orders are passed by the third respondent, based on the said notice.</p><p> The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'sree-balaji-medical-college-hospital-represented-dean-chennai-vs-commercial-registration'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '934052',
	(int) 1 => 'sree-balaji-medical-college-hospital-represented-dean-chennai-vs-commercial-registration'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/934052/sree-balaji-medical-college-hospital-represented-dean-chennai-vs-commercial-registration'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>(<strong>Prayer:</strong> Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the impugned proceedings of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent herein made in TIN/33570887231/2011-12 dated 27.04.2012 and QUASH the same and consequently restraining the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent herein from levying and collecting taxes on rendering diagnostic services on X-Ray films, CT films, MRI films and medical gases for impatient treatments and other allied medical services to the patients at the petitioner's medical college hospital.)<p> 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 2.The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the professional services rendered by the Doctors of the petitioner Medical college hospital, under the nature of diagnostic services on X-Ray Films and supply of medical gases and implants, which are used during the course of treatment to patients, would not amount to transfer of property in goods or an incident of contract of service, under the scope of 'works contract', as per Article 366 (29A) (b) of the Constitution of India and under Section 2(33) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Therefore, the impugned notice issued by the third respondent, relating to the assessment year 2011-2012, under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, is arbitrary and illegal and without the authority of law.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 3. t this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition,Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, had submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to raise all the grounds available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, before the third respondent, while filing its reply to the impugned notice issued by the third respondent. Thereafter, it is for the third respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law. He had further submitted that till such orders are passed by the third respondent no action would be taken against the petitioner, by the respondents, for recovering the tax and penalty proposed, as per the impugned notice of the third respondent, dated 27.04.2012.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 4. In view of the said submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner is directed to file its objections, if any, to the impugned notice of the third respondent,dated 27.04.2012, raising all the issues available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the objections to be filed by the petitioner, the third respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing, to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks thereafter. However, it is made clear that no coercive steps would be taken by the respondents to collect the taxes and the penalty proposed by the impugned notice, issued by the third respondent, till final orders are passed by the third respondent, based on the said notice.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.',
	(int) 5 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 6
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the impugned proceedings of the 3^rd Respondent herein made in TIN/33570887231/2011-12 dated 27.04.2012 and QUASH the same and consequently restraining the 3^rd Respondent herein from levying and collecting taxes on rendering diagnostic services on X-Ray films, CT films, MRI films and medical gases for impatient treatments and other allied medical services to the patients at the petitioner's medical college hospital.)

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital Represented by Its Dean Chennai Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Secretary Commercial Taxes and Registration Department Chennai and Others - Citation 934052 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '934052',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.22679, 22683, 22680, 22681, 22682 of 2012 &amp; M.P.No.1 of 2012 ',
			'appellant' => 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, Represented by Its Dean, Chennai',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, Represented by Its Dean, Chennai Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Constitution of India - Article 226 &ndash; Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - Section 2(33) -',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'For the Petitioner: Ms. G. Sumitra, Advocate. For the Respondents: P.H. Arvind Pandiyan Additional Advocate General for A.R. Jayapratap, Government Advocate (Taxes).',
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Chennai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2012-09-11',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'M. JAICHANDREN',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">(<strong>Prayer:</strong> Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the impugned proceedings of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent herein made in TIN/33570887231/2011-12 dated 27.04.2012 and QUASH the same and consequently restraining the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent herein from levying and collecting taxes on rendering diagnostic services on X-Ray films, CT films, MRI films and medical gases for impatient treatments and other allied medical services to the patients at the petitioner's medical college hospital.)<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2.The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the professional services rendered by the Doctors of the petitioner Medical college hospital, under the nature of diagnostic services on X-Ray Films and supply of medical gases and implants, which are used during the course of treatment to patients, would not amount to transfer of property in goods or an incident of contract of service, under the scope of 'works contract', as per Article 366 (29A) (b) of the Constitution of India and under Section 2(33) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Therefore, the impugned notice issued by the third respondent, relating to the assessment year 2011-2012, under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, is arbitrary and illegal and without the authority of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. t this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition,Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, had submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to raise all the grounds available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, before the third respondent, while filing its reply to the impugned notice issued by the third respondent. Thereafter, it is for the third respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law. He had further submitted that till such orders are passed by the third respondent no action would be taken against the petitioner, by the respondents, for recovering the tax and penalty proposed, as per the impugned notice of the third respondent, dated 27.04.2012.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. In view of the said submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner is directed to file its objections, if any, to the impugned notice of the third respondent,dated 27.04.2012, raising all the issues available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the objections to be filed by the petitioner, the third respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing, to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks thereafter. However, it is made clear that no coercive steps would be taken by the respondents to collect the taxes and the penalty proposed by the impugned notice, issued by the third respondent, till final orders are passed by the third respondent, based on the said notice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'sree-balaji-medical-college-hospital-represented-dean-chennai-vs-commercial-registration',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '934052',
		(int) 1 => 'sree-balaji-medical-college-hospital-represented-dean-chennai-vs-commercial-registration'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital Represented by Its Dean Chennai Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Secretary Commercial Taxes and Registration Department Chennai and Others - Citation 934052 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '934052',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.22679, 22683, 22680, 22681, 22682 of 2012 &amp; M.P.No.1 of 2012 ',
		'appellant' => 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, Represented by Its Dean, Chennai',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, Represented by Its Dean, Chennai Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Constitution of India - Article 226 &ndash; Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - Section 2(33) -',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'For the Petitioner: Ms. G. Sumitra, Advocate. For the Respondents: P.H. Arvind Pandiyan Additional Advocate General for A.R. Jayapratap, Government Advocate (Taxes).',
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Chennai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2012-09-11',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'M. JAICHANDREN',
		'judgement' => '<p>(<strong>Prayer:</strong> Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the impugned proceedings of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent herein made in TIN/33570887231/2011-12 dated 27.04.2012 and QUASH the same and consequently restraining the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent herein from levying and collecting taxes on rendering diagnostic services on X-Ray films, CT films, MRI films and medical gases for impatient treatments and other allied medical services to the patients at the petitioner's medical college hospital.)<p> 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.</p><p> 2.The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the professional services rendered by the Doctors of the petitioner Medical college hospital, under the nature of diagnostic services on X-Ray Films and supply of medical gases and implants, which are used during the course of treatment to patients, would not amount to transfer of property in goods or an incident of contract of service, under the scope of 'works contract', as per Article 366 (29A) (b) of the Constitution of India and under Section 2(33) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Therefore, the impugned notice issued by the third respondent, relating to the assessment year 2011-2012, under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, is arbitrary and illegal and without the authority of law.</p><p> 3. t this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition,Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, had submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to raise all the grounds available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, before the third respondent, while filing its reply to the impugned notice issued by the third respondent. Thereafter, it is for the third respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law. He had further submitted that till such orders are passed by the third respondent no action would be taken against the petitioner, by the respondents, for recovering the tax and penalty proposed, as per the impugned notice of the third respondent, dated 27.04.2012.</p><p> 4. In view of the said submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner is directed to file its objections, if any, to the impugned notice of the third respondent,dated 27.04.2012, raising all the issues available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the objections to be filed by the petitioner, the third respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing, to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks thereafter. However, it is made clear that no coercive steps would be taken by the respondents to collect the taxes and the penalty proposed by the impugned notice, issued by the third respondent, till final orders are passed by the third respondent, based on the said notice.</p><p> The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'sree-balaji-medical-college-hospital-represented-dean-chennai-vs-commercial-registration'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '934052',
	(int) 1 => 'sree-balaji-medical-college-hospital-represented-dean-chennai-vs-commercial-registration'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/934052/sree-balaji-medical-college-hospital-represented-dean-chennai-vs-commercial-registration'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>(<strong>Prayer:</strong> Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the impugned proceedings of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent herein made in TIN/33570887231/2011-12 dated 27.04.2012 and QUASH the same and consequently restraining the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent herein from levying and collecting taxes on rendering diagnostic services on X-Ray films, CT films, MRI films and medical gases for impatient treatments and other allied medical services to the patients at the petitioner's medical college hospital.)<p> 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 2.The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the professional services rendered by the Doctors of the petitioner Medical college hospital, under the nature of diagnostic services on X-Ray Films and supply of medical gases and implants, which are used during the course of treatment to patients, would not amount to transfer of property in goods or an incident of contract of service, under the scope of 'works contract', as per Article 366 (29A) (b) of the Constitution of India and under Section 2(33) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Therefore, the impugned notice issued by the third respondent, relating to the assessment year 2011-2012, under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, is arbitrary and illegal and without the authority of law.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 3. t this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition,Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, had submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to raise all the grounds available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, before the third respondent, while filing its reply to the impugned notice issued by the third respondent. Thereafter, it is for the third respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law. He had further submitted that till such orders are passed by the third respondent no action would be taken against the petitioner, by the respondents, for recovering the tax and penalty proposed, as per the impugned notice of the third respondent, dated 27.04.2012.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 4. In view of the said submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner is directed to file its objections, if any, to the impugned notice of the third respondent,dated 27.04.2012, raising all the issues available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the objections to be filed by the petitioner, the third respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing, to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks thereafter. However, it is made clear that no coercive steps would be taken by the respondents to collect the taxes and the penalty proposed by the impugned notice, issued by the third respondent, till final orders are passed by the third respondent, based on the said notice.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.',
	(int) 5 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 6
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2.The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the professional services rendered by the Doctors of the petitioner Medical college hospital, under the nature of diagnostic services on X-Ray Films and supply of medical gases and implants, which are used during the course of treatment to patients, would not amount to transfer of property in goods or an incident of contract of service, under the scope of 'works contract', as per Article 366 (29A) (b) of the Constitution of India and under Section 2(33) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Therefore, the impugned notice issued by the third respondent, relating to the assessment year 2011-2012, under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, is arbitrary and illegal and without the authority of law.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital Represented by Its Dean Chennai Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Secretary Commercial Taxes and Registration Department Chennai and Others - Citation 934052 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '934052',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.22679, 22683, 22680, 22681, 22682 of 2012 &amp; M.P.No.1 of 2012 ',
			'appellant' => 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, Represented by Its Dean, Chennai',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, Represented by Its Dean, Chennai Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Constitution of India - Article 226 &ndash; Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - Section 2(33) -',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'For the Petitioner: Ms. G. Sumitra, Advocate. For the Respondents: P.H. Arvind Pandiyan Additional Advocate General for A.R. Jayapratap, Government Advocate (Taxes).',
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Chennai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2012-09-11',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'M. JAICHANDREN',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">(<strong>Prayer:</strong> Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the impugned proceedings of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent herein made in TIN/33570887231/2011-12 dated 27.04.2012 and QUASH the same and consequently restraining the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent herein from levying and collecting taxes on rendering diagnostic services on X-Ray films, CT films, MRI films and medical gases for impatient treatments and other allied medical services to the patients at the petitioner's medical college hospital.)<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2.The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the professional services rendered by the Doctors of the petitioner Medical college hospital, under the nature of diagnostic services on X-Ray Films and supply of medical gases and implants, which are used during the course of treatment to patients, would not amount to transfer of property in goods or an incident of contract of service, under the scope of 'works contract', as per Article 366 (29A) (b) of the Constitution of India and under Section 2(33) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Therefore, the impugned notice issued by the third respondent, relating to the assessment year 2011-2012, under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, is arbitrary and illegal and without the authority of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. t this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition,Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, had submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to raise all the grounds available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, before the third respondent, while filing its reply to the impugned notice issued by the third respondent. Thereafter, it is for the third respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law. He had further submitted that till such orders are passed by the third respondent no action would be taken against the petitioner, by the respondents, for recovering the tax and penalty proposed, as per the impugned notice of the third respondent, dated 27.04.2012.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. In view of the said submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner is directed to file its objections, if any, to the impugned notice of the third respondent,dated 27.04.2012, raising all the issues available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the objections to be filed by the petitioner, the third respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing, to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks thereafter. However, it is made clear that no coercive steps would be taken by the respondents to collect the taxes and the penalty proposed by the impugned notice, issued by the third respondent, till final orders are passed by the third respondent, based on the said notice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'sree-balaji-medical-college-hospital-represented-dean-chennai-vs-commercial-registration',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '934052',
		(int) 1 => 'sree-balaji-medical-college-hospital-represented-dean-chennai-vs-commercial-registration'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital Represented by Its Dean Chennai Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Secretary Commercial Taxes and Registration Department Chennai and Others - Citation 934052 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '934052',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.22679, 22683, 22680, 22681, 22682 of 2012 &amp; M.P.No.1 of 2012 ',
		'appellant' => 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, Represented by Its Dean, Chennai',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, Represented by Its Dean, Chennai Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Constitution of India - Article 226 &ndash; Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - Section 2(33) -',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'For the Petitioner: Ms. G. Sumitra, Advocate. For the Respondents: P.H. Arvind Pandiyan Additional Advocate General for A.R. Jayapratap, Government Advocate (Taxes).',
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Chennai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2012-09-11',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'M. JAICHANDREN',
		'judgement' => '<p>(<strong>Prayer:</strong> Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the impugned proceedings of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent herein made in TIN/33570887231/2011-12 dated 27.04.2012 and QUASH the same and consequently restraining the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent herein from levying and collecting taxes on rendering diagnostic services on X-Ray films, CT films, MRI films and medical gases for impatient treatments and other allied medical services to the patients at the petitioner's medical college hospital.)<p> 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.</p><p> 2.The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the professional services rendered by the Doctors of the petitioner Medical college hospital, under the nature of diagnostic services on X-Ray Films and supply of medical gases and implants, which are used during the course of treatment to patients, would not amount to transfer of property in goods or an incident of contract of service, under the scope of 'works contract', as per Article 366 (29A) (b) of the Constitution of India and under Section 2(33) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Therefore, the impugned notice issued by the third respondent, relating to the assessment year 2011-2012, under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, is arbitrary and illegal and without the authority of law.</p><p> 3. t this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition,Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, had submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to raise all the grounds available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, before the third respondent, while filing its reply to the impugned notice issued by the third respondent. Thereafter, it is for the third respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law. He had further submitted that till such orders are passed by the third respondent no action would be taken against the petitioner, by the respondents, for recovering the tax and penalty proposed, as per the impugned notice of the third respondent, dated 27.04.2012.</p><p> 4. In view of the said submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner is directed to file its objections, if any, to the impugned notice of the third respondent,dated 27.04.2012, raising all the issues available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the objections to be filed by the petitioner, the third respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing, to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks thereafter. However, it is made clear that no coercive steps would be taken by the respondents to collect the taxes and the penalty proposed by the impugned notice, issued by the third respondent, till final orders are passed by the third respondent, based on the said notice.</p><p> The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'sree-balaji-medical-college-hospital-represented-dean-chennai-vs-commercial-registration'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '934052',
	(int) 1 => 'sree-balaji-medical-college-hospital-represented-dean-chennai-vs-commercial-registration'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/934052/sree-balaji-medical-college-hospital-represented-dean-chennai-vs-commercial-registration'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>(<strong>Prayer:</strong> Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the impugned proceedings of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent herein made in TIN/33570887231/2011-12 dated 27.04.2012 and QUASH the same and consequently restraining the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent herein from levying and collecting taxes on rendering diagnostic services on X-Ray films, CT films, MRI films and medical gases for impatient treatments and other allied medical services to the patients at the petitioner's medical college hospital.)<p> 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 2.The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the professional services rendered by the Doctors of the petitioner Medical college hospital, under the nature of diagnostic services on X-Ray Films and supply of medical gases and implants, which are used during the course of treatment to patients, would not amount to transfer of property in goods or an incident of contract of service, under the scope of 'works contract', as per Article 366 (29A) (b) of the Constitution of India and under Section 2(33) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Therefore, the impugned notice issued by the third respondent, relating to the assessment year 2011-2012, under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, is arbitrary and illegal and without the authority of law.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 3. t this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition,Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, had submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to raise all the grounds available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, before the third respondent, while filing its reply to the impugned notice issued by the third respondent. Thereafter, it is for the third respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law. He had further submitted that till such orders are passed by the third respondent no action would be taken against the petitioner, by the respondents, for recovering the tax and penalty proposed, as per the impugned notice of the third respondent, dated 27.04.2012.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 4. In view of the said submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner is directed to file its objections, if any, to the impugned notice of the third respondent,dated 27.04.2012, raising all the issues available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the objections to be filed by the petitioner, the third respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing, to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks thereafter. However, it is made clear that no coercive steps would be taken by the respondents to collect the taxes and the penalty proposed by the impugned notice, issued by the third respondent, till final orders are passed by the third respondent, based on the said notice.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.',
	(int) 5 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 6
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. t this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition,Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, had submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to raise all the grounds available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, before the third respondent, while filing its reply to the impugned notice issued by the third respondent. Thereafter, it is for the third respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law. He had further submitted that till such orders are passed by the third respondent no action would be taken against the petitioner, by the respondents, for recovering the tax and penalty proposed, as per the impugned notice of the third respondent, dated 27.04.2012.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital Represented by Its Dean Chennai Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Secretary Commercial Taxes and Registration Department Chennai and Others - Citation 934052 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '934052',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.22679, 22683, 22680, 22681, 22682 of 2012 &amp; M.P.No.1 of 2012 ',
			'appellant' => 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, Represented by Its Dean, Chennai',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, Represented by Its Dean, Chennai Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Constitution of India - Article 226 &ndash; Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - Section 2(33) -',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'For the Petitioner: Ms. G. Sumitra, Advocate. For the Respondents: P.H. Arvind Pandiyan Additional Advocate General for A.R. Jayapratap, Government Advocate (Taxes).',
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Chennai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2012-09-11',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'M. JAICHANDREN',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">(<strong>Prayer:</strong> Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the impugned proceedings of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent herein made in TIN/33570887231/2011-12 dated 27.04.2012 and QUASH the same and consequently restraining the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent herein from levying and collecting taxes on rendering diagnostic services on X-Ray films, CT films, MRI films and medical gases for impatient treatments and other allied medical services to the patients at the petitioner's medical college hospital.)<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2.The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the professional services rendered by the Doctors of the petitioner Medical college hospital, under the nature of diagnostic services on X-Ray Films and supply of medical gases and implants, which are used during the course of treatment to patients, would not amount to transfer of property in goods or an incident of contract of service, under the scope of 'works contract', as per Article 366 (29A) (b) of the Constitution of India and under Section 2(33) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Therefore, the impugned notice issued by the third respondent, relating to the assessment year 2011-2012, under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, is arbitrary and illegal and without the authority of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. t this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition,Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, had submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to raise all the grounds available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, before the third respondent, while filing its reply to the impugned notice issued by the third respondent. Thereafter, it is for the third respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law. He had further submitted that till such orders are passed by the third respondent no action would be taken against the petitioner, by the respondents, for recovering the tax and penalty proposed, as per the impugned notice of the third respondent, dated 27.04.2012.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. In view of the said submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner is directed to file its objections, if any, to the impugned notice of the third respondent,dated 27.04.2012, raising all the issues available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the objections to be filed by the petitioner, the third respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing, to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks thereafter. However, it is made clear that no coercive steps would be taken by the respondents to collect the taxes and the penalty proposed by the impugned notice, issued by the third respondent, till final orders are passed by the third respondent, based on the said notice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'sree-balaji-medical-college-hospital-represented-dean-chennai-vs-commercial-registration',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '934052',
		(int) 1 => 'sree-balaji-medical-college-hospital-represented-dean-chennai-vs-commercial-registration'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital Represented by Its Dean Chennai Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Secretary Commercial Taxes and Registration Department Chennai and Others - Citation 934052 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '934052',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.22679, 22683, 22680, 22681, 22682 of 2012 &amp; M.P.No.1 of 2012 ',
		'appellant' => 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, Represented by Its Dean, Chennai',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, Represented by Its Dean, Chennai Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Constitution of India - Article 226 &ndash; Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - Section 2(33) -',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'For the Petitioner: Ms. G. Sumitra, Advocate. For the Respondents: P.H. Arvind Pandiyan Additional Advocate General for A.R. Jayapratap, Government Advocate (Taxes).',
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Chennai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2012-09-11',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'M. JAICHANDREN',
		'judgement' => '<p>(<strong>Prayer:</strong> Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the impugned proceedings of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent herein made in TIN/33570887231/2011-12 dated 27.04.2012 and QUASH the same and consequently restraining the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent herein from levying and collecting taxes on rendering diagnostic services on X-Ray films, CT films, MRI films and medical gases for impatient treatments and other allied medical services to the patients at the petitioner's medical college hospital.)<p> 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.</p><p> 2.The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the professional services rendered by the Doctors of the petitioner Medical college hospital, under the nature of diagnostic services on X-Ray Films and supply of medical gases and implants, which are used during the course of treatment to patients, would not amount to transfer of property in goods or an incident of contract of service, under the scope of 'works contract', as per Article 366 (29A) (b) of the Constitution of India and under Section 2(33) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Therefore, the impugned notice issued by the third respondent, relating to the assessment year 2011-2012, under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, is arbitrary and illegal and without the authority of law.</p><p> 3. t this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition,Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, had submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to raise all the grounds available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, before the third respondent, while filing its reply to the impugned notice issued by the third respondent. Thereafter, it is for the third respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law. He had further submitted that till such orders are passed by the third respondent no action would be taken against the petitioner, by the respondents, for recovering the tax and penalty proposed, as per the impugned notice of the third respondent, dated 27.04.2012.</p><p> 4. In view of the said submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner is directed to file its objections, if any, to the impugned notice of the third respondent,dated 27.04.2012, raising all the issues available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the objections to be filed by the petitioner, the third respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing, to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks thereafter. However, it is made clear that no coercive steps would be taken by the respondents to collect the taxes and the penalty proposed by the impugned notice, issued by the third respondent, till final orders are passed by the third respondent, based on the said notice.</p><p> The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'sree-balaji-medical-college-hospital-represented-dean-chennai-vs-commercial-registration'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '934052',
	(int) 1 => 'sree-balaji-medical-college-hospital-represented-dean-chennai-vs-commercial-registration'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/934052/sree-balaji-medical-college-hospital-represented-dean-chennai-vs-commercial-registration'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>(<strong>Prayer:</strong> Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the impugned proceedings of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent herein made in TIN/33570887231/2011-12 dated 27.04.2012 and QUASH the same and consequently restraining the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent herein from levying and collecting taxes on rendering diagnostic services on X-Ray films, CT films, MRI films and medical gases for impatient treatments and other allied medical services to the patients at the petitioner's medical college hospital.)<p> 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 2.The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the professional services rendered by the Doctors of the petitioner Medical college hospital, under the nature of diagnostic services on X-Ray Films and supply of medical gases and implants, which are used during the course of treatment to patients, would not amount to transfer of property in goods or an incident of contract of service, under the scope of 'works contract', as per Article 366 (29A) (b) of the Constitution of India and under Section 2(33) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Therefore, the impugned notice issued by the third respondent, relating to the assessment year 2011-2012, under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, is arbitrary and illegal and without the authority of law.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 3. t this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition,Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, had submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to raise all the grounds available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, before the third respondent, while filing its reply to the impugned notice issued by the third respondent. Thereafter, it is for the third respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law. He had further submitted that till such orders are passed by the third respondent no action would be taken against the petitioner, by the respondents, for recovering the tax and penalty proposed, as per the impugned notice of the third respondent, dated 27.04.2012.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 4. In view of the said submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner is directed to file its objections, if any, to the impugned notice of the third respondent,dated 27.04.2012, raising all the issues available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the objections to be filed by the petitioner, the third respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing, to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks thereafter. However, it is made clear that no coercive steps would be taken by the respondents to collect the taxes and the penalty proposed by the impugned notice, issued by the third respondent, till final orders are passed by the third respondent, based on the said notice.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.',
	(int) 5 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 6
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. In view of the said submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner is directed to file its objections, if any, to the impugned notice of the third respondent,dated 27.04.2012, raising all the issues available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the objections to be filed by the petitioner, the third respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing, to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks thereafter. However, it is made clear that no coercive steps would be taken by the respondents to collect the taxes and the penalty proposed by the impugned notice, issued by the third respondent, till final orders are passed by the third respondent, based on the said notice.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital Represented by Its Dean Chennai Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Secretary Commercial Taxes and Registration Department Chennai and Others - Citation 934052 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '934052',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.22679, 22683, 22680, 22681, 22682 of 2012 &amp; M.P.No.1 of 2012 ',
			'appellant' => 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, Represented by Its Dean, Chennai',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, Represented by Its Dean, Chennai Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Constitution of India - Article 226 &ndash; Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - Section 2(33) -',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'For the Petitioner: Ms. G. Sumitra, Advocate. For the Respondents: P.H. Arvind Pandiyan Additional Advocate General for A.R. Jayapratap, Government Advocate (Taxes).',
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Chennai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2012-09-11',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'M. JAICHANDREN',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">(<strong>Prayer:</strong> Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the impugned proceedings of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent herein made in TIN/33570887231/2011-12 dated 27.04.2012 and QUASH the same and consequently restraining the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent herein from levying and collecting taxes on rendering diagnostic services on X-Ray films, CT films, MRI films and medical gases for impatient treatments and other allied medical services to the patients at the petitioner's medical college hospital.)<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2.The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the professional services rendered by the Doctors of the petitioner Medical college hospital, under the nature of diagnostic services on X-Ray Films and supply of medical gases and implants, which are used during the course of treatment to patients, would not amount to transfer of property in goods or an incident of contract of service, under the scope of 'works contract', as per Article 366 (29A) (b) of the Constitution of India and under Section 2(33) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Therefore, the impugned notice issued by the third respondent, relating to the assessment year 2011-2012, under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, is arbitrary and illegal and without the authority of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. t this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition,Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, had submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to raise all the grounds available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, before the third respondent, while filing its reply to the impugned notice issued by the third respondent. Thereafter, it is for the third respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law. He had further submitted that till such orders are passed by the third respondent no action would be taken against the petitioner, by the respondents, for recovering the tax and penalty proposed, as per the impugned notice of the third respondent, dated 27.04.2012.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. In view of the said submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner is directed to file its objections, if any, to the impugned notice of the third respondent,dated 27.04.2012, raising all the issues available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the objections to be filed by the petitioner, the third respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing, to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks thereafter. However, it is made clear that no coercive steps would be taken by the respondents to collect the taxes and the penalty proposed by the impugned notice, issued by the third respondent, till final orders are passed by the third respondent, based on the said notice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'sree-balaji-medical-college-hospital-represented-dean-chennai-vs-commercial-registration',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '934052',
		(int) 1 => 'sree-balaji-medical-college-hospital-represented-dean-chennai-vs-commercial-registration'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital Represented by Its Dean Chennai Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Secretary Commercial Taxes and Registration Department Chennai and Others - Citation 934052 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '934052',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.22679, 22683, 22680, 22681, 22682 of 2012 &amp; M.P.No.1 of 2012 ',
		'appellant' => 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, Represented by Its Dean, Chennai',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, Represented by Its Dean, Chennai Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Constitution of India - Article 226 &ndash; Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - Section 2(33) -',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'For the Petitioner: Ms. G. Sumitra, Advocate. For the Respondents: P.H. Arvind Pandiyan Additional Advocate General for A.R. Jayapratap, Government Advocate (Taxes).',
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Chennai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2012-09-11',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'M. JAICHANDREN',
		'judgement' => '<p>(<strong>Prayer:</strong> Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the impugned proceedings of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent herein made in TIN/33570887231/2011-12 dated 27.04.2012 and QUASH the same and consequently restraining the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent herein from levying and collecting taxes on rendering diagnostic services on X-Ray films, CT films, MRI films and medical gases for impatient treatments and other allied medical services to the patients at the petitioner's medical college hospital.)<p> 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.</p><p> 2.The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the professional services rendered by the Doctors of the petitioner Medical college hospital, under the nature of diagnostic services on X-Ray Films and supply of medical gases and implants, which are used during the course of treatment to patients, would not amount to transfer of property in goods or an incident of contract of service, under the scope of 'works contract', as per Article 366 (29A) (b) of the Constitution of India and under Section 2(33) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Therefore, the impugned notice issued by the third respondent, relating to the assessment year 2011-2012, under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, is arbitrary and illegal and without the authority of law.</p><p> 3. t this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition,Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, had submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to raise all the grounds available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, before the third respondent, while filing its reply to the impugned notice issued by the third respondent. Thereafter, it is for the third respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law. He had further submitted that till such orders are passed by the third respondent no action would be taken against the petitioner, by the respondents, for recovering the tax and penalty proposed, as per the impugned notice of the third respondent, dated 27.04.2012.</p><p> 4. In view of the said submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner is directed to file its objections, if any, to the impugned notice of the third respondent,dated 27.04.2012, raising all the issues available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the objections to be filed by the petitioner, the third respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing, to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks thereafter. However, it is made clear that no coercive steps would be taken by the respondents to collect the taxes and the penalty proposed by the impugned notice, issued by the third respondent, till final orders are passed by the third respondent, based on the said notice.</p><p> The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'sree-balaji-medical-college-hospital-represented-dean-chennai-vs-commercial-registration'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '934052',
	(int) 1 => 'sree-balaji-medical-college-hospital-represented-dean-chennai-vs-commercial-registration'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/934052/sree-balaji-medical-college-hospital-represented-dean-chennai-vs-commercial-registration'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>(<strong>Prayer:</strong> Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the impugned proceedings of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent herein made in TIN/33570887231/2011-12 dated 27.04.2012 and QUASH the same and consequently restraining the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent herein from levying and collecting taxes on rendering diagnostic services on X-Ray films, CT films, MRI films and medical gases for impatient treatments and other allied medical services to the patients at the petitioner's medical college hospital.)<p> 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 2.The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the professional services rendered by the Doctors of the petitioner Medical college hospital, under the nature of diagnostic services on X-Ray Films and supply of medical gases and implants, which are used during the course of treatment to patients, would not amount to transfer of property in goods or an incident of contract of service, under the scope of 'works contract', as per Article 366 (29A) (b) of the Constitution of India and under Section 2(33) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Therefore, the impugned notice issued by the third respondent, relating to the assessment year 2011-2012, under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, is arbitrary and illegal and without the authority of law.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 3. t this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition,Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, had submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to raise all the grounds available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, before the third respondent, while filing its reply to the impugned notice issued by the third respondent. Thereafter, it is for the third respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law. He had further submitted that till such orders are passed by the third respondent no action would be taken against the petitioner, by the respondents, for recovering the tax and penalty proposed, as per the impugned notice of the third respondent, dated 27.04.2012.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 4. In view of the said submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner is directed to file its objections, if any, to the impugned notice of the third respondent,dated 27.04.2012, raising all the issues available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the objections to be filed by the petitioner, the third respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing, to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks thereafter. However, it is made clear that no coercive steps would be taken by the respondents to collect the taxes and the penalty proposed by the impugned notice, issued by the third respondent, till final orders are passed by the third respondent, based on the said notice.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.',
	(int) 5 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 6
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital Represented by Its Dean Chennai Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Secretary Commercial Taxes and Registration Department Chennai and Others - Citation 934052 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '934052',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.22679, 22683, 22680, 22681, 22682 of 2012 &amp; M.P.No.1 of 2012 ',
			'appellant' => 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, Represented by Its Dean, Chennai',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, Represented by Its Dean, Chennai Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Constitution of India - Article 226 &ndash; Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - Section 2(33) -',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'For the Petitioner: Ms. G. Sumitra, Advocate. For the Respondents: P.H. Arvind Pandiyan Additional Advocate General for A.R. Jayapratap, Government Advocate (Taxes).',
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Chennai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2012-09-11',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'M. JAICHANDREN',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">(<strong>Prayer:</strong> Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the impugned proceedings of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent herein made in TIN/33570887231/2011-12 dated 27.04.2012 and QUASH the same and consequently restraining the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent herein from levying and collecting taxes on rendering diagnostic services on X-Ray films, CT films, MRI films and medical gases for impatient treatments and other allied medical services to the patients at the petitioner's medical college hospital.)<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2.The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the professional services rendered by the Doctors of the petitioner Medical college hospital, under the nature of diagnostic services on X-Ray Films and supply of medical gases and implants, which are used during the course of treatment to patients, would not amount to transfer of property in goods or an incident of contract of service, under the scope of 'works contract', as per Article 366 (29A) (b) of the Constitution of India and under Section 2(33) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Therefore, the impugned notice issued by the third respondent, relating to the assessment year 2011-2012, under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, is arbitrary and illegal and without the authority of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. t this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition,Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, had submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to raise all the grounds available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, before the third respondent, while filing its reply to the impugned notice issued by the third respondent. Thereafter, it is for the third respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law. He had further submitted that till such orders are passed by the third respondent no action would be taken against the petitioner, by the respondents, for recovering the tax and penalty proposed, as per the impugned notice of the third respondent, dated 27.04.2012.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. In view of the said submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner is directed to file its objections, if any, to the impugned notice of the third respondent,dated 27.04.2012, raising all the issues available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the objections to be filed by the petitioner, the third respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing, to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks thereafter. However, it is made clear that no coercive steps would be taken by the respondents to collect the taxes and the penalty proposed by the impugned notice, issued by the third respondent, till final orders are passed by the third respondent, based on the said notice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'sree-balaji-medical-college-hospital-represented-dean-chennai-vs-commercial-registration',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '934052',
		(int) 1 => 'sree-balaji-medical-college-hospital-represented-dean-chennai-vs-commercial-registration'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital Represented by Its Dean Chennai Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Secretary Commercial Taxes and Registration Department Chennai and Others - Citation 934052 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '934052',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.22679, 22683, 22680, 22681, 22682 of 2012 &amp; M.P.No.1 of 2012 ',
		'appellant' => 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, Represented by Its Dean, Chennai',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, Represented by Its Dean, Chennai Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Constitution of India - Article 226 &ndash; Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - Section 2(33) -',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'For the Petitioner: Ms. G. Sumitra, Advocate. For the Respondents: P.H. Arvind Pandiyan Additional Advocate General for A.R. Jayapratap, Government Advocate (Taxes).',
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Chennai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2012-09-11',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'M. JAICHANDREN',
		'judgement' => '<p>(<strong>Prayer:</strong> Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the impugned proceedings of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent herein made in TIN/33570887231/2011-12 dated 27.04.2012 and QUASH the same and consequently restraining the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent herein from levying and collecting taxes on rendering diagnostic services on X-Ray films, CT films, MRI films and medical gases for impatient treatments and other allied medical services to the patients at the petitioner's medical college hospital.)<p> 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.</p><p> 2.The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the professional services rendered by the Doctors of the petitioner Medical college hospital, under the nature of diagnostic services on X-Ray Films and supply of medical gases and implants, which are used during the course of treatment to patients, would not amount to transfer of property in goods or an incident of contract of service, under the scope of 'works contract', as per Article 366 (29A) (b) of the Constitution of India and under Section 2(33) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Therefore, the impugned notice issued by the third respondent, relating to the assessment year 2011-2012, under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, is arbitrary and illegal and without the authority of law.</p><p> 3. t this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition,Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, had submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to raise all the grounds available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, before the third respondent, while filing its reply to the impugned notice issued by the third respondent. Thereafter, it is for the third respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law. He had further submitted that till such orders are passed by the third respondent no action would be taken against the petitioner, by the respondents, for recovering the tax and penalty proposed, as per the impugned notice of the third respondent, dated 27.04.2012.</p><p> 4. In view of the said submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner is directed to file its objections, if any, to the impugned notice of the third respondent,dated 27.04.2012, raising all the issues available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the objections to be filed by the petitioner, the third respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing, to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks thereafter. However, it is made clear that no coercive steps would be taken by the respondents to collect the taxes and the penalty proposed by the impugned notice, issued by the third respondent, till final orders are passed by the third respondent, based on the said notice.</p><p> The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'sree-balaji-medical-college-hospital-represented-dean-chennai-vs-commercial-registration'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '934052',
	(int) 1 => 'sree-balaji-medical-college-hospital-represented-dean-chennai-vs-commercial-registration'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/934052/sree-balaji-medical-college-hospital-represented-dean-chennai-vs-commercial-registration'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>(<strong>Prayer:</strong> Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the impugned proceedings of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent herein made in TIN/33570887231/2011-12 dated 27.04.2012 and QUASH the same and consequently restraining the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent herein from levying and collecting taxes on rendering diagnostic services on X-Ray films, CT films, MRI films and medical gases for impatient treatments and other allied medical services to the patients at the petitioner's medical college hospital.)<p> 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 2.The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the professional services rendered by the Doctors of the petitioner Medical college hospital, under the nature of diagnostic services on X-Ray Films and supply of medical gases and implants, which are used during the course of treatment to patients, would not amount to transfer of property in goods or an incident of contract of service, under the scope of 'works contract', as per Article 366 (29A) (b) of the Constitution of India and under Section 2(33) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Therefore, the impugned notice issued by the third respondent, relating to the assessment year 2011-2012, under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, is arbitrary and illegal and without the authority of law.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 3. t this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition,Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, had submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to raise all the grounds available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, before the third respondent, while filing its reply to the impugned notice issued by the third respondent. Thereafter, it is for the third respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law. He had further submitted that till such orders are passed by the third respondent no action would be taken against the petitioner, by the respondents, for recovering the tax and penalty proposed, as per the impugned notice of the third respondent, dated 27.04.2012.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 4. In view of the said submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner is directed to file its objections, if any, to the impugned notice of the third respondent,dated 27.04.2012, raising all the issues available to it, as per law, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the objections to be filed by the petitioner, the third respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing, to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks thereafter. However, it is made clear that no coercive steps would be taken by the respondents to collect the taxes and the penalty proposed by the impugned notice, issued by the third respondent, till final orders are passed by the third respondent, based on the said notice.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.',
	(int) 5 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 6
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Court	Chennai High Court
Decided On	Sep-11-2012
Case Number	Writ Petition No.22679, 22683, 22680, 22681, 22682 of 2012 & M.P.No.1 of 2012
Judge	M. JAICHANDREN
Appellant	Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, Represented by Its Dean, Chennai
Respondent	The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai and Others
Advocates:	For the Petitioner: Ms. G. Sumitra, Advocate. For the Respondents: P.H. Arvind Pandiyan Additional Advocate General for A.R. Jayapratap, Government Advocate (Taxes).

Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, Represented by Its Dean, Chennai Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai and Others - Court Judgment