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. S.P. Fabricators Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director Versus The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Chennai and The Assistant Commissioner (CT) Koyambedu Assessment Circle, Chennai

2016 (2) TMI 96 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Condonation of Delay of 29 days in filing appeal from the date of receipt of return memo - TNVAT - Held that:- The 1st respondent passed the impugned orders on account of delay in representation which he cannot condone. This Court, on being satisfied with the reasons adduced in the affidavit filed by the petitioner, is inclined to accept the same. Accordingly, the delay caused in representing the appeal papers before the Appellate Authority is condoned. The petitioner is directed to represent 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

Appellant : Mr.B.Raveendran For the Respondent : Mr.S.Kanmani Annamali, Additional Government Pleader JUDGEMENT The Petitioner has filed these Writ Petitions challenging the impugned orders passed by the first respondent in N.Dis.No.1018/2015/A1 and N.Dis.No.1019/2015/A1 dated 28.09.2015 and quash the same. 2. The petitioner is a registered dealer on the file of 2nd respondent herein under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Value Added tax Act, 2006 and they have been duly filing monthly returns and p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing the excess claim of ITC and in respect of 2010-2011, he arrived at a conclusion that there was a sales suppression and proposed to revise the assessments accordingly. 4. The petitioner, to the said revision notices filed detailed objections. But without considering the same, the 2nd respondent passed orders of revision of assessment on 27.2.2015 by confirming his proposals. Subsequent to that, the petitioner filed separate rectification applications for the assessment years 2008-2009 and 201 .....

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 was a delay of 30 days in filing the statutory appeals and the appeal papers were returned for filing final receipt for payment of 25% of disputed taxes and for filing proof of service of the assessment order and the said defects were complied with and represented within the stipulated time. Again, the appeal papers were returned on 21.08.2015 for filing application to condone the delay in filing the appeals and the same was represented with a delay of 19 days as the appeal papers got mixed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

held by the 1st respondent in the impugned orders that the petitioner has failed to comply with the above stipulation and represented the appeal papers after a lapse of 29 days from the date of receipt of return memo. Aggrieved against the impugned orders passed by the 1st respondent, the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petitions. 6. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Government Pleader. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that .....

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