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

2016 (8) TMI 174 - KERALA HIGH COURT

2016 (8) TMI 174 - KERALA HIGH COURT - TMI - Validity of order - violation of principles of natural justice. - Petitioner was given an opportunity for a personal hearing on any of the working days at the office of the Officer. According to the petitioner, unless the posting date is given, there could not be a proper hearing in the matter. - Held that:- it is a settled principles of law that when an alternate remedy is available, this Court shall not normally interfere unless in exceptional circu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t petition dismissed - Decided against the petitioner. - W.P.(C) No.23456 of 2016 - Dated:- 14-7-2016 - A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J. FOR THE PETITONER : ADVS. SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN, SRI.P.R.AJITHKUMAR, SRI.S.A.MANSOOR (PATTANAM) FOR THE RESPONDENT : GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LILLY.K.T JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P5 order on the ground that the order had been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice. It is stated that even in Ext.P1 notice of hearing issued under Section 25 (1) 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

to Ext.P3, the order was passed. 2. Perusal of the impugned order, Ext.P5 would show that the assessee had appeared in person and filed the reply. The officer further observes that in the reply, the assessee had admitted the offence in the pre-assessment notice. Hence the assessment in respect of the assessee was completed under Section 25 (1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no objection in the reply filed and the facts state .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ner wanted anything to be submitted personally, the petitioner could have approached the officer or further arguing the matter. Whereas the petitioner had appeared in person and filed a reply on 19.5.2016, wherein the petitioner had virtually admitted the alleged difference in purchase. It is stated in reply as under: 1. The difference in purchase as per returns and Audit Report amounting to ₹ 7,50,322/- had been clarified vide reconciliation statement attached to the Audit Report in Form .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t satisfied with above, one more opportunity of being heard may please be granted before proceeding the matter. 5. The assessee virtually submits that the difference in purchase as per returns in audit report occurred due to an error while submitting returns and a request for revising has been sent through e-mail prior to Ext.P1 along with certificate of the Chartered Accountant. Hence a request was made to reconsider the proposal in the light of the said submission. 6. It cannot be disputed tha .....

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