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

M/s AJK Safety Engineering Versus The Commercial Tax Officer-I, The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT)

2015 (12) TMI 238 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Claim of concessional rate of tax - Refund claim - pre deposit - Held that:- Petitioner herein has also paid the mandatory pre-deposit amount, however, stating that the appeal is barred by limitation, the same was rejected. The pre-deposit amount was not refunded to the petitioner - 1st respondent may be directed to issue fresh notice and on receipt of the same, the petitioner may be directed to file their objections and on receipt of the same, the 1st respondent may be directed to consider 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

s taken up for disposal. 2. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the 1st respondent dated 24.10.2014 for assessment year in CST/2013-14 and the consequential order of the 2nd respondent dated 29.06.2015 and to direct the 1st respondent to issue the pre-assessment notice and grant opportunity of personal hearing. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner, being a registered dealer under the provisions of the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007 and Cen .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r that assessment proceedings for the assessment year CST 2012-13 is yet to be completed by the 1st respondent. However, an ex parte order of assessment dated 24.10.2014 served by ordinary post on 26.10.2014 for the assessment year CST 2013-14 was straight away passed by the 1st respondent, without issuing any pre-assessment notice calling for objections. 4. That apart, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the partner of the petitioner Company, who has been managing and maintaini .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

according to him, the petitioner is having all C Forms and filed along with the appeal amounting to ₹ 13,41,583/- for claiming concessional rate of tax which was arrived by the 1st respondent on 24.10.2014 as taxable turnover in the ex-parte assessment order and he would further urge that if the forms were to be considered, the total taxable turnover comes to nil. 5. Besides, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, without considering the sufficient cause and submissions rais .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in the statutory C Forms online. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned ex parte assessment order passed by the 1st respondent is ex facie illegal, erroneous in law and violative of principles of natural justice, since the same has been passed without issuing pre-assessment notice. Hence, the same is liable to be quashed. 7. The learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) relying on the counter affidavit submitted that a pre-assessment notice dated 12.08.2014 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

furnishing the statutory forms and hence the respondent has discharged his duties by confirming the proposition in the pre-assessment notice and issued final assessment order on 24.10.2014. Further, She would submit that since the appeal has been filed belatedly, the 2nd respondent has rightly rejected the appeal. 8. At this juncture, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no pre-assessment notice was served on the petitioner. In reply, the 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

s also paid. Stating that the appeal is barred by limitation, the same was returned and hence, without any other remedy, the petitioner challenges the impugned order of assessment before this Court. 4. The one and only ground to be considered is violation of principles of natural justice. The authority, without affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, passed the impugned order, despite specific request made by the petitioner on those lines. Originally, the assessment was completed 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

y, without providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner of being heard the impugned order came to be passed. On this score itself, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. In the result, the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in TIN/33521344565/2011-12 dated 27.6.2014 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the assessing authority for fresh consideration. The petitioner shall file necessary objections along with all the documentary evidences, within a period of t .....

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 the mandatory pre-deposit amount, however, stating that the appeal is barred by limitation, the same was rejected. The pre-deposit amount was not refunded to the petitioner is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, which fact has not been disputed by the learned Additional Government Pleader. 11. At this point of time, the learned Additional Government Pleader fairly submitted that the 1st respondent may be directed to issue fresh notice and on receipt of the same, the pet .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

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


|| 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