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. JMASSH DOORS AND WINDOWS PRIVATE LIMITED Versus THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER and THE STATE OF KERALA

2016 (1) TMI 378 - KERALA HIGH COURT

Validity of impugned order - Opportunity of hearing not granted - Held that:- Documents produced by the petitioner would show that reply was submitted before the office of the 1st respondent only on 04.09.2015. By this time however, the 1st responden .....

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 order to substantiate his contentions in reply, I am of the view that order of the 1st respondent cannot be faulted on the ground that it was passed in violation of Rules of Natural Justice. The petitioner having chosen not to produce his books 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

SANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. FOR THE PETITIONER : BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON, SMT.MEERA V.MENON FOR THE RESPONDENT : R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT. K.T. LILLY JUDGMENT The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P8 order of the 1st respondent, whic .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to passing Ext.P8 order, the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of being heard and further the petitioner was not given an opportunity to produce the books of accounts and other records to fortify the contentions in the reply submitted to 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

nces of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I find that in response to a notice that was issued to the petitioner on 10.07.2015, the petitioner had preferred Ext.P5 reply dated 17.08.2015, which was submitted before the office of the 1s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

or perusal by the adjudicating authority. There was nothing done in the matter by the petitioner even thereafter till 31.08.2015, on which date, Ext.P8 order was passed by the 1st respondent. The petitioner filed Ext.P6 reply, substantially on the sa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

.P6 reply was submitted before the office of the 1st respondent only on 04.09.2015. By this time however, the 1st respondent had already passed Ext.P8 assessment order, as also issued the notice of demand. Considering the fact that the petitioner had .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

espondent cannot be faulted on the ground that it was passed in violation of Rules of Natural Justice. The petitioner having chosen not to produce his books of accounts for perusal by the 1st respondent before the assessment, cannot be heard to compl .....

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