Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Ran India Steels Pvt Ltd Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT) (ENT) Namakkal, The Commercial Tax Officer (FAC Tiruchengode (Town) Circle Tiruchengode

2015 (8) TMI 1241 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Power to Assessment – Impugned order is challenged on ground that 1st respondent has no power of assessment, since same has been conferred on jurisdictional assessing authority -2nd respondent – Held that:- Admittedly 1st respondent, issued impugned notice and 2nd respondent conducted inspection at their factory premises and after spending whole day in assessing actual burning loss and actual consumption of electricity, after inspection, arrived at finding and based on finding 2nd respondent has .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

le officer to attend work with respect to trial production is quashed – Decided in favour of Petitioner. - W. P. No. 11884 of 2015, M. P. Nos. 1 & 2 of 2015 - Dated:- 4-6-2015 - T. Raja, J. For the Appellant : Mr. S Rajasekar For the Respondent : Mr. V Haribabu, AGP (Taxes) JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.V.Haribabu, learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) for the respondents. 2. The writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order issued by the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mpugned proceedings to conduct an independent demonstration, which is not permissible under law. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed an illustration to support his contention that when the assessee is having two units presumably one at Parrys Corner and another Unit at T.Nagar, and the assessee having registered his entire business transactions at the office of the Parrys Corner, pursuant thereto, when he has been submitting his returns for the assessment years only in the Parrys Co .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

atch of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.13901, 30851 to 30880 of 2013 etc. batch cases, this Court, by order dated 26.11.2014, in paragraph No.63(3), while answering the similar issue has held that the assessing officer alone is to embark upon the fact finding exercise to ascertain the quantum of loss of the goods. Therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the Assessing Officer to visit the place of business of the petitioner, but not by the 1st respondent. 6. Mr.V.Haribabu, learned Additional Govern .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n of the order of this Court rendered in W.P.Nos.13901, 30851 to 30880 of 2013 etc. batch cases dated 26.11.2014. "(3) For the reasons assigned, it is not sufficient for a dealer claiming refund under Section 18(2) of the Act to show that he has paid input tax on the goods purchased; that those goods are used in the manufacture and nothing more but there is duty upon the dealer to satisfy the Assessing Authority that the claim is not hit by any of the restrictions or conditions contained un .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

representation made by the dealer is justified and is not hit by any any of the restrictions and conditions contained in Section 19 and in particular Section 19(9) of the VAT Act". 7. Admittedly, in the present case, the Assistant Commissioner(CT), (ENT) Namakkal, the 1st respondent herein, has issued the impugned notice. When the petitioner has admittedly submitting the assessments only to the 2nd respondent at Tiruchengode, the 1st respondent, who is an official of the Enforcement Wing of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rrived at a finding and based on the finding the 2nd respondent has also framed assessment for the years 2006-07 to 2008-09. Therefore, it is not open to the 1st respondent to undertake any inspection in the guise of demonstration to make assessment for the years 2009-10 to 2011-12. 8. This Court finds merits in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. As noted earlier, admittedly, the petitioner having engaged in the manufacture of TMT Bars and allied products, is an assessee o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version