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

2015 (8) TMI 1307 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

2015 (8) TMI 1307 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT - [2016] 88 VST 349 (MP) - Rejection of application for settlement - Section 24B of the M.P. VAT Act - no opportunity was granted to the petitioner. - discretion in refusing the adjournment after more than 5-6 opportunities have been granted to him - Held that:- on the ground of adjournment one or the other discretion in refusing the adjournment in the facts and circumstances of the case showing that the Authority has acted arbitrary or illegally ref .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and have verified the entries made therein as to whether the settlement should be permitted or that a part a single entry repeated multiple times. Than the amount be inflated as the error shown in para 7-8 the calculation made by the Authority shall considered the same. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter was granted to proceed on 26.08.2014 but while deciding the question of permanent settlement, they were not considered or accepted or rejected by showing that 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

hri Sumit Nema with Shri Mukesh Agrawal, Advocates for the petitioner. Shri K.S. Wadhwa, Addl. Advocate General for the respondents. ORDER Challenging the orders of assessment for various period as mentioned in the writ petition, i.e., orders dated: (1) June 29, 2012: 2/2011-VAT under section 55A (State) (Block period December 24, 2007 to October 25, 2010) (2) June 29, 2012: 2/2011-Praveshkar under section 55A (ET) (Block period April 1, 2010 to October 25, 2010) (3) December 21, 2011: Prantiya/ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

settlement, this petition has been filed under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution. Two contentions that have been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sumit Nema during the course of hearing. First contention is that the impugned order rejecting the application without granting adjournment to the petitioner and thereafter notice (Annexure P/5) was served upon the petitioner on 22.08.2014 and the matter was fixed for settlement on 26.08.2014. As the counsel for the petitioner w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rity was compelled to adjourn the case and thereafter the matter was proceeded exparte. Counsel for the petitioner submits that on the ground of non-availability of counsel, the matter was proceeded and no opportunity was granted to the petitioner. The second ground canvassed by the counsel for the petitioner is that in the application filed before the Chairman of Settlement under Section 24 B of the M.P. Vat Act from page Nos. 122 of the paper book, detailed submissions were made which running .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

specific example to show as to how a single transaction is shown on multiple times, which resulted in enhancement of transaction and the final assessment order suffers from immaterial due to these factors. Shri Sumit Nema, counsel for the petitioner submits that while deciding the question of permanent settlement of the tax in the written proposal had been concluded, this advert has not been considered and the matter should be remanded back to the Assessing Officer to evaluate the error being s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ty of petitioner/counsel for the petitioner is considered which concluded that more than 5-6 opportunities have been granted to him on one pretext to the other and on the sixth occasion, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Authority proceeded in accordance with law on the ground of non-availability of petitioner and on the ground of adjournment one or the other discretion in refusing the adjournment in the facts and circumstances of the case showing that the Authority has acted arbitrary .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y the petitioner in proposal Annexure P/4 has already indicated from para-6 onwards and in para 7 and 8 specific errors have been found in the assessment order has been pointed out by the making a single entry in different places differently as as result, there is multiplicity of single entries which has inflated the turn over. Consequently, the tax has already been calculated on the basis of multiple entries of a single entry as demonstrated by the petitioner in para 7-8. Even, if the responden .....

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