New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (8) TMI 1241 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

2015 (8) TMI 1241 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - TMI - 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 f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

istant Executive Engineer, to depute responsible 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t to exercise his powers in the guise of the impugned 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

up for consideration before this Court, in a batch 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 responden .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is useful to extract below the relevant portion 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ich it is to be ascertained as to whether the 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, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

onsumption of electricity, after inspection, arrived 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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