T. SUBRAMANIAN Vs. DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revenue is the appellant and challenging the quashment of the notice, dated 301.08.2005, issued by the appellant/sole respondent in the writ petition, the present writ appeal is filed.

(2.) A perusal of the impugned order would disclose that Mr. M. Md.Ibrahim Ali, learned counsel, was appeared for the respondent/writ petitioner and Mr. K. Vadivelu, learned counsel, who is the junior of Mr. M. Md. Ibrahim Ali, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent and by consent, this writ appeal is taken up for final disposal.

(3.) The facts leading to the filing of this writ appeal have been narrated in detail and in extenso, in the impugned order, dated 02.02.2011, made in W.P(MD)No.11717 of 2005, which is the subject matter of challenge in the writ appeal, and hence, it is unnecessary to narrate the entire facts, except to cull out the relevant facts, for the purpose of disposal of this writ appeal: