Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
CGST - Acts + GST Rates GST Ntf. GST Forms GST - Manual GST - FAQ State GST Acts SGST Ntf. I. Tax Manual
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

MI Steel Processing India Pvt. Ltd. Rep by Director Makoto Katsuno Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT) Kancheepuram and The Appellate Deputy Commissioner Chennai (South)

Seeking return of papers - Assessment order passed by 1st respondent questioned before 2nd respondent and paid an amount of ₹ 16,80,500/- and also furnished bank guarantee for ₹ 33,61,00/- by the petitioner. After having heard the appeal, the 2nd respondent rejected the contentions of the petitioner and dismissed the appeal as not entertainable holding that the dispute cannot be the subject matter of the appeal under Section 51 of the Act and instead of returning the papers to the pe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

l authority complying with all the formalities. On such presentation, the authority concerned shall entertain the same without any reference to the period of limitation and dispose of the same in accordance with law. Petition disposed of - W.P.Nos.24425 of 2015 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2015 - Dated:- 12-10-2015 - MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN For the Petitioner :Mr. Joseph Prabakar For the Respondent :Mr. V. Haribabu, AGP ORDER Writ petition is filed for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

steel coils and manufacturing of automotive parts registered under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006 with TIN No.33111644181 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 with registration number CST 1244789. During the year 2013- 2014, the petitioner awarded two contracts to M/s.Fujita Corporation, for ₹ 32.01 crores and ₹ 1.60 crores respectively. After the receipt of the contract, Fujita Corporation obtained two certificates in Form S for non-deduction of TDS. While so, the respondent i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he petitioner is before this Court with the prayer as mentioned above. 3. Heard both sides and also perused the records carefully. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said assessment order was questioned before the Appellate Authority/second respondent and the petitioner paid an amount of ₹ 16,80,500/- and also furnished bank guarantee for ₹ 33,61,00/-. Further, according to him, after having heard the appeal, the Appellate Authority/second respondent rejected .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ted 01.09.2015 this Court has passed the following order: In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of the 2nd respondent dismissing the appeal as against levy of tax on TDS and the consequential levy of penalty under Section 27(3) of the TNVAT Act, for want of jurisdiction, is set aside and the 2nd respondent is directed to return all papers to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such papers, the same .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version