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 →

Power Mech Projects Limited Versus State of Tripura and others

2016 (7) TMI 74 - TRIPURA HIGH COURT

Validity of assessment order - petitioner submitted that the rules of natural justice have not been followed while deciding the case - valuation - rejection of return - Held that:- on two grounds (i) vagueness of the notice, and (ii) violation of the rules of natural justice, we without going into the merits of the case, quash the impugned order. The assessing officer shall be at liberty to issue fresh notice in which he should clearly spell out the reasons why he feels that the return is a fals .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e incorrect and incomplete and has further held that the assessee is liable to pay additional tax of ₹ 14,62,342.04 plus interest of ₹ 7,67,729.57 and penalty at 150 per cent. amounted to ₹ 21,93,513.06, i.e., to say a total amount of ₹ 44,23,585 for the assessment year 2010-11. For the assessment year 2011-12, the balance due is ₹ 1,69,12,462.38, interest ₹ 58,34,799.52 and penalty ₹ 2,53,68,693.57, total amount is ₹ 4,81,15,955. Similarly, for 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

ould be pertinent to mention that earlier also the petitioner had filed W. P. (C) No. 91 of 2012 (Power Mech Projects Limited v. State of Tripura) in this court which had been disposed of by this court in the following terms: "2. There is no manner of doubt that the contract which the petitioner has entered into with the respondent is a works contract and, therefore, tax has to be paid only on the taxable turnover as determined in terms of sections 4 and 5 of the Tripura Value Added Tax Act .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Rajasthan [1993] 88 STC 204 (SC); [1993] 1 SCC 364 and by this court in Biplab Kumar Ghosh v. Union of India [2014] 67 VST 1 (Tripura) (W. P. (C) No. 73 of 2013). We further direct that the petitioner should cooperate with the assessing officer and the assessment should be completed latest by February 28, 2014. In case any amount is found refundable to the petitioner the same shall be refunded along with interest as payable under the provisions of the Tripura Value Added Tax Act on or before Ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the petitioner to appear before the assessing authority along with a copy of the judgment dated December 10, 2013. It is not disputed before us that the petitioner did appear and thereafter, some hearings took place. The entire problem has arisen due to the notice dated February 20, 2014. In this notice reference has made to the judgment of this court and the assessing officer issued notice to the petitioner and the main grounds for issuing notice are as follows: "WHEREAS, after examinatio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

like charges from the value of the amount received by the dealer from the contractee. Hence, I am satisfied to assess the dealer to my best of judgment in the following manner deducting therefrom the charges towards labour, services and other like charges." According to the assessing officer, the returns filed by the assessee are incorrect and incomplete and further the documents produced by the assessee are not worthy of credence to deduct the charges towards labour, services and other lik .....

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 feels that the documents relied upon by the company cannot be relied upon. If the documents are duly audited by chartered accountants, the assessing officer will have to give reasons why he is not accepting the same. He cannot just pass a single line order saying that he does not accept the same to be correct. That would run contrary to all canons of tax jurisprudence. It is also not understood how the assessing officer has come to the conclusion that the maximum deduction on account of labo .....

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