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 →

Mc. Rennet Foods Pvt Ltd Versus Assistant Commissioner (CT)

2016 (1) TMI 280 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Input Tax Credit - levy of penalty - TNVAT - gross violation of principles of natural justice without conducting - The petitioner herein filed a petition under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act to the respondent on 5.11.2015 stating that the revised order has been passed by mistake of law and mistake of fact of incorrect adoption of amount of ITC reversed and hence, it is liable to be rectified under Section 84 of the Act and requested the respondent to issue a revised order. - Held that:- After elabo .....

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 and Mr.Joseph Prabakar learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), who took notice for the respondent and with their consent, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal. 2. The petitioner company is a baker involved in the manufacture of both taxable and exempted bakery products and in addition to the manufacture of bakery products, it also involved in trading of branded bakery products of other companies. The petitioner is a registered dealer under TNVAT Act 2006 and CST Act, 1956. 3 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

#8377; 9,31,107.00 under Section 19(12) of the Act for the assessment year 2012-2013 and also proposed to levy penalty at 50% on the differential ITC amount at ₹ 4,65,554/-. Therefore, the petitioner filed a detailed objections in their letter dated 26.09.2015 highlighting the difference in the amount of ITC, the exempted and total turnover adopted in the formula for the computation of reversal of ITC. Despite this, the respondent in its impugned proceedings dated 5.10.2015, by adopting &# .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sted the respondent to issue a revised order. The respondent had rejected the said petition filed by the petitioner by order passed in TIN/33040640221/2012-2013/RC/96/15 (AG) dated 16.11.2015, observing that the impugned order dated 5.10.2015 was passed after considering the objections and also providing an opportunity of personal hearing. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order contains errors apparent on the face of re .....

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