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 Ravi Timber Agency Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT)

2015 (12) TMI 1426 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Levy of penalty under Section 27(3) - escapement of assessment due to wilful non disclosure of assessable turnover and in the absence of any omission of turnover - Held that:- For the pre-assessment notices dated 26.12.2014, the petitioner had filed replies dated 06.01.2015, which are supported by acknowledgements dated 08.01.2015. However, in the impugned orders, it has been specifically stated that no objections had been filed. Hence, it is crystal clear that the respondent without considering .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

spondent dated 27.02.2015 and to direct the respondent to consider the objections and grant personal hearing. 3.1 According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner, being a registered dealer under the TNVAT Act and CST Act, is an assessee on the file of the respondent. For the assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2011-12, the petitioner filed its monthly returns, disclosing all its purchases and sales made during the year and based on the same, respective assessment orders und .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

27.02.2015, which were received on 06.03.2015, confirming the proposal on the ground that the petitioner had not filed any objections for the notices dated 26.12.2014. 3.3. That apart, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, by issuing notices dated 26.12.2014, though objections were called for within 15 days from the date of receipt of such notices, however, there is no whisper about granting opportunity of being heard, however, the respondent, in the impugned orders had alleged 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

vy penalty under the Act and therefore, the levy of maximum penalty is illegal. 3.5. Adding further, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the replies filed by the petitioner along with the documents were acknowledged by the respondent on 08.01.2015. The respondent, after receiving the replies, conveniently, ignored the same and passed the impugned orders by stating that the petitioner had not filed any replies, which is incorrect and contrary to records. 3.6 Relying upon 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

 

 

 

 

 

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