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 Badani Jewellers Versus The Deputy Commissioner (CT) , The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer

2016 (4) TMI 95 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Refund claim of amount collected towards compounding fee - Detain of mix gold ornaments and released on collecting compounding fee - Proper due process of law not followed - Second respondent neither issued any notice nor passed any compounding order before collecting the compounding fee of ₹ 3,05,802/- from the petitioner for release of the goods - Held that:- in view of the ground raised by petitioner that it would suffice, if a copy of the notice relating to compounding fee is served on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ng of such revision, the authority concerned shall entertain the same without raising any issue relating to limitation and thereafter consider and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Since the place of business of the petitioner is at Gujarat, representation shall be made by the counsel on record for the petitioner, on which basis, the copy of the compounding notice shall be furnished to him. - Petit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

According to the petitioner, the petitioner is a registered dealer under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act. In the course of their business, the petitioner sent mixed gold ornaments under approval voucher/Bill ref. No.1 dated 29.09.2014 to their representative through courier viz., M/s. Blue Dart Aviation. As no buyer was available for the same, the representative returned the entire goods on 30.09.2014, without effecting any sale in the State of Tamil Nadu. At that time, the goods were checked an .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

for the petitioner submitted that the goods in question were transported accompanying the valid documents, which clearly show that the same were sent for approval and on final selection of the same, sale bill would be raised. However, without properly verifying the same and without any authority, the second respondent detained the same and issued the goods detention notice dated 30.09.2014. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent neither issued any notic .....

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