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

2015 (12) TMI 784 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

2015 (12) TMI 784 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - TMI - Condonation of delay - Inordinate delay of 200 days - Held that:- Admittedly, the appellate authority having found that the petitioner has filed the appeals with a delay of more than 200 days and also violated the 2nd proviso to Section 51(1) of the Act, which stipulates that no appeal shall be entertained unless the same is accompanied by satisfactory proof of the payment of the tax admitted by the appellant to be due or of such instalments thereof .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ason with a deliberate intention to delay the matters. The appellate authority also did not record such a finding. - Delay condoned. - W.P.Nos.30914 to 30918 of 2015, M.P.Nos.1 of 2015 - Dated:- 30-9-2015 - R. Mahadevan, J. For the Appellant : Mr R Senniappan For the Respondents : Mr. S. Kanmani Annamalai, AGP(T) ORDER Mr. S. Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), takes notice for the respondents and with their consent, the main writ petitions are taken up for disposal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

department while raising bill had deducted 2% as TDs in accordance with Section 13 of the TNVAT Act, 2006. The petitioner had done civil work for a private person also in respect of which, the petitioner made payment of tax to the department in time without default. As a result, there was an excess payment accumulated in every assessment year, which was carry forward to the next assessment year, likewise accumulated year after year from 2010-11 to till date, as a result, the 2nd respondent has 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

Form I and the value mentioned in the purchase statement and therefore, added equal time for probable omission to the book turnover with gross profit and freight as a result, a huge amount of tax including penalty levied against the petitioner under Section 27(3)(c) of the Act. 3.2 According to the petitioner, as against the said orders of the 2nd respondent dated 30.09.2014, the petitioner preferred appeals before the 1st respondent by paying 25% of the disputed tax, however with a delay of 23 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ere filed with a delay of 231 days respectively, the appeals papers are returned. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that challenging the correctness of the assessment orders in question the petitioner preferred appeals before the appellate authority, however with a delay of more than 200 days. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the delay was occurred in view of fact that the Accounts .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rned having suffered from certain medical ailments and not due to certain malafide reason. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the delay has to be condoned and the matters are to be heard by the appellate authority on merits. 5. The learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), appearing for the respondents, on the other hand submitted that since the appeals were filed beyond the limitation period, the appellate authority has rightly rejected the appeals. 6. This Cou .....

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 an appeal before the appellate authority within a further period of 30 days and such appeal can be admitted if the assessee has sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the first 30 days. As far as the cases in hand are concerned, the petitioner has filed the appeals after a period of more than 200 days. Admittedly, the appellate authority having found that the petitioner has filed the appeals with a delay of more than 200 days and also violated the 2nd proviso to Section 51(1) 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

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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