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

2016 (9) TMI 772 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

2016 (9) TMI 772 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - TMI - Validity of order of assessment - Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act 2006 - Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 entitlement of input tax credit - purchase of yarn from local registered dealer carrying of dyeing process in their factory local sales - certain quantity of Yarn sent to factory in Kerala to carry on dyeing process and is again brought back to Tamil Nadu for sale inspection by Enforcement Wing Officials pre-assessment notice sought time to .....

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 Act and he is bound to complete the assessment, taking into consideration the objections raised by the dealer. Therefore, the respondent would not be justified in merely adopting the report as such. However, the respondent cannot be fully faulted because the petitioner did not submit their objections in spite of sufficient time being granted. - The respondent shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and independently complete the assessment and not solely be guide .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r.S.Kanmani Annamalai, Addl.Govt.Pleader COMMON ORDER Heard Mr.T.Bashyam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent and with the consent on either side, the writ petition is taken up for disposal. 2 In all these writ petition the petitioner challenges the orders of Assessment passed under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act 2006 [TNVAT Act] for the Assessment Years 2008-2009 to 2014-2015. The petitione .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

brought back to Tamil Nadu for sale. The petitioner's place of business was inspected by the Enforcement Wing Officials between 09.09.2014 and 12.09.2014 and during the course of such inspection, certain defects were noticed. These defects were consolidated in the form of a report and it appears to have been forwarded to the respondent, who is the Assessing Officer of the petitioner. On receipt of the report, the respondent issued pre-revision notices to the petitioner on 07.04.2015 pointing .....

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 avail Input Tax Credit. Therefore, the respondent proposed to reverse the same based on the above report of the Enforcement Wing Officials. The respondent also proposed to hold that the petitioner is not entitled to adjust the Input Tax Credit towards the tax due and also proposed to impose penalty. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has received the pre-revision notices and the accountant of the petitioner/company has given several letters, requesting for time to file their objections .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f principles of natural justice since opportunity of personal hearing was not granted to the petitioner. Furthermore, it is submitted that merely because the Enforcement Wing Officials have submitted a report, that cannot be the sole basis for taking a decision in the matter and the respondent being the Assessing Officer, has to take a decision uninfluenced by the report of the Enforcement Wing Officials. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Madra .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

objections. Nevertheless, when the proposed revision is to be done in accordance with the provisions of the TNVAT Act, it would be advisable for the respondent to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The need for affording an opportunity of personal hearing was emphasized by this Court in the case of SRC Projects Pvt Ltd., Vs. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and another reported in 2008-09 [14] TNCTJ 220, wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench has held as follows:- .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

issioner proposes to record a finding, which is adverse to the dealer and such adverse order to the assessee can only be made after giving the assessee a hearing. 27.We also hold, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the impugned order by way of revision of assessment should not have been passed without giving the assessee an opportunity of personal hearing. But since the same has been denied, the impugned order is hereby quashed. 6 That apart, the impugned Assessment Orders have been pa .....

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