Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Boopathy Versus Assistant Commissioner (CT) , West Tower Street Circle, Madurai

2015 (8) TMI 1301 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Determination of VAT tax liability - suppression of sale - The petitioner is running a small petty Beeda Stall in the name and style of “Central Beeda Stall”. - reasonable opportunity of hearing not provided - Held that:- Writ Petition is allowed - Demand notices quashed - The petitioner is directed to file his objections to the impugned notices, dated 12.04.2015, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the same, the respondent shall proc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

DER The Writ Petitions have been filed, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the respondent in ROC.No.69/2015-A4, dated 12.04.2015 and the consequential impugned order made in Asst.No.69/2015-A4, dated 16.07.2015 and the demand notices in ROC.No.69/2015-A4, dated 16.07.2015, made in respect of the Assessment year 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 respectively and quash the same, as illegal. 2. Since the issue involved in all .....

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 registered under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Further it has been held that an inspection was held by the enforcement wing officers on 05.01.2015 and based on the inspection, the respondent has come to a conclusion that there has been sale suppression by the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner is liable for payment of Value Added Tax. In the said notices, the tax amount was indicated. By the said notice, the petitioner was called upon to submit his objection. But, on receipt .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the same, the respondent, without providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to prefer his case effectively before the authority, passed the consequential impugned order, dated 16.07.2015, calling upon the petitioner to pay the Sales Tax amount of ₹ 2,55,220/-, ₹ 3,03,934/- and ₹ 3,25,568/-respectively. Hence, aggrieved over the same, the present writ petitions have been filed. 4. The main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that inspite of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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