9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 1326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Background facts The petitioner is a registered dealer on the file of the second respondent. The petitioner was appointed as a sub-contractor by M/s. IVRCL Infrastructure and Project Limited, Chennai, who is the principal contractor of Tamil Nadu Water and Drainage Board, Eastern Region for their Vedarniyam Combined Water Supply Scheme. The petitioner appear to have commenced their work during the assessment year 2001-02. They have filed their first return under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as, "the TNGST Act") on March 7, 2002 and opted for payment of tax on the sub-contract under section 7C of the TNGST Act. The second respondent, while passing the assessment order for the year 2001-02, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner is before this court. Submissions The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that with respect to the assessment year 2002-03, the option given by the petitioner under section 7C was accepted by the assessing authority. Therefore, even in respect of the assessment year 2001-02, the said consideration should have been shown. According to the learned counsel, the contract in question was a continuos one and as such, it was not open to the assessing authority to assess one part of the transaction under section 7C of the TNGST Act and another part under section 3B. The leaned counsel further contended that it was only to rectify the error apparent on the face of the record, the subject application was preferred by the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the first monthly return for the financial year. Therefore, the whole issue revolves on the question as to whether the petitioner has submitted his first monthly return within the time permitted by law for the purpose of availing of the concession under section 7C(2) of the TNGST Act. The assessment was pertaining to the year 2001-02. The petitioner was expected to file his first monthly return for the month of April 2001 on or before May 20, 2001. The petitioner has not filed the monthly return within the time permitted by law and no option was exercised to pay tax under section 7C(1) of the TNGST Act. Therefore, the case of the petitioner for payment under section 7C of the TNGST Act was rightly rejected by the assessing authority a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y cannot rectify the order for the said assessment year on the basis of the assessment order for the subsequent year, which was made on account of the exercise of option during the said financial year. The application filed by the petitioner was for the purpose of rectification. The issue regarding the payment of tax under section 7C of the TNGST Act was considered by the assessing authority as well as by the appellate authority. The claim made by the petitioner was rejected on merits. The order is now sought to be rectified on the basis of a subsequent order permitting payment of tax under section 7C of the TNGST Act. The permission granted to pay tax under section 7C(1) for the assessment year 2002-03 was made only on account of the exer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
