Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (12) TMI 238 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

2015 (12) TMI 238 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - TMI - 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 1 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d with their consent, the main writ petition is 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 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

ssion of the learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitione .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ide the ex parte order of assessment. Further, 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 conside .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ate and hence the petitioner is unable to obtain 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

atutory forms or to seek extension of time for 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 petit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f 60 days. The mandatory pre-deposit amount was 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

petitioner is entitled for the same. Apparently, 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 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

is concerned, the 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 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 fr .....

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