Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s ESS EMM Metal Works Versus State of Punjab and others

2015 (10) TMI 777 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Denial of input tax credit - Imposition of penalty - Held that:- Assessment order has been passed ex parte by the Assessing Authority, Jalandhar- II, holding total tax liability of the petitioner-firm to the tune of ₹ 1,41,29,588/-. The stand of the petitioner-firm is that no notice was ever served to it, before passing the impugned order. Mr. Roshan Lal Sharma, its alleged Accountant was never employed by it and, therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondent-department that th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s an appropriate and legal order - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee. - CWP No.14728 of 2015 - Dated:- 4-9-2015 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MR. RAMENDRA JAIN, JJ. For The Petitioner : Mr. Avneesh Jhingan, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Addl. A.G., Punjab RAMENDRA JAIN, J. Through the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the assessment order .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er received any notice, but despite that during pendency of the proceedings, on one date, presence of one Mr. Roshan Lal, showing himself to be the Accountant of the petitioner was wrongly marked by the Assessing Authority, because, he never remained its employee and thus, had no connection whatsoever with him. Finally, without serving any notice, the respondent No.2 passed ex parte assessment order dated 31.03.2015 (Annexure P-2) wrongly and illegally, disallowing the Input Tax Credit (ITC) on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

aid under Rule 86 of Punjab Valued Added Tax Rules, 2005. Though the residential address of the petitioner-firm was also available with the Assessing Authority, but no efforts were made to serve it on the same. Even otherwise, the assessment order was not speaking one as was being passed without application of mind, because total purchases of the petitioner were to the tune of ₹ 1.33 crores, but the Assessing Authority had rejected ITC on the purchases of ₹ 33.99 crores. The petition .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he assessment order dated 31.03.2015 (Annexure P-2), alleging that the petitioner was playing hide and seek with the respondentdepartment to avoid tax liability. The petitioner was served with a notice dated 26.09.2014 under Section 29 of the Act, which was duly received by its Accountant Mr. Roshan Lal Sharma, who appeared on 28.10.2014, before the Assessing Authority and submitted a request letter seeking time for rendering explanation. However, thereafter no one appeared on behalf of the peti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version