New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (7) TMI 369 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

2016 (7) TMI 369 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - TMI - Writ petition challenging the order of assessment dated 31.7.2014 - The specific case of the petitioner is that they filed Form W by way of e-filing and it is well within the time limit prescribed under Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007. (TNVAT) - Held that:- it is clear that the respondent is well aware of the fact that Form W has been filed by the petitioner within the time frame. If that be the case, the observations contained 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

Sundareswaran For the Respondent : Mr. Manohar Sundaram, AGP ORDER Heard both. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner, who is a registered dealer on the file of the respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006 (hereinafter called the Act), has filed this writ petition challenging the order of assessment dated 31.7.2014 as well as the order rejecting the petitioner's petition under Section 84 of the Act dated 16.3.2015 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

9;s case is that after receipt of the pre-assessment notice dated 8.7.2014, they sent a representation dated 21.7.2014 requesting some more time to be granted to submit their explanation. 5. Though the respondent has referred to the petitioner's letter dated 21.7.2014, he proceeded to frame the assessment ex parte stating that the petitioner has not filed their objections. The approach of the respondent is not proper, since the Assessing Officer should have either accepted the request for ad .....

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 factual position and based on the written instructions given by the respondent vide letter dated 3.9.2015, submitted that the respondent was justified in passing the impugned orders, as, in terms of Section 18(3) of the Act, the credit shall stand lapsed to the Government. It was further contended that the dealer did not produce invoices and other related documents within 180 days from the date of making zero rated sales as prescribed under Rule 11(2) of the said Rules. 7. From the para wise .....

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