9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 1122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent writ petition challenging the revised assessment order for the year 2010-11, dated March 6, 2014. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner effected sale to a registered dealer and hence, the petitioner is liable to pay concessional tax of two per cent. in accordance with section 8(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The petitioner also submitted form C for a sum of Rs. 11,01,95,087, but, the same was rejected by the respondent stating that it was not submitted within the quarter in accordance with section 8(4) of the Sales Tax Act. To substantiate that the petitioner can be permitted to produce the declaration form in form C before the final assessment of the accounts of that year, he would rely on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rspective, the respondent has passed the revised assessment order dated March 6, 2014, thereby, levying the tax at four per cent. of the entire amount of Rs. 11,01,95,087. To substantiate his contention that when the revised assessment order was passed without considering the request for personal hearing, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, the learned counsel would rely on the Division Bench judgment of this court reported in [2010] 33 VST 333 (Mad) (SRC Projects Private Limited v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai) wherein, this court has held as follows (page 342 in 33 VST): "26. Another judgment was also cited by the learned counsel for the appellant in the case of Jayam Traders v. Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent and also the fact that the petitioner has already submitted the declaration form in form C and also the fact that the petitioner in his reply, dated January 31, 2014, sought for an opportunity of personal hearing, but, the same was not given and as per the Division Bench judgment of this court reported in [2010] 33 VST 333 (Mad) (SRC Projects Private Limited v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai), this court has held that when the revised assessment order was passed without considering the request for personal hearing, the impugned order has to be necessarily set aside and therefore, following the same, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order. In the result, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
