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 →

M/s. Canon India Private Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax, The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

2016 (10) TMI 146 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Refund claim of excess tax paid - TNGST Act, 1959 - Held that: - in the absence of any record to show that the Appeal has been preferred by the Revenue as against the order passed in Tax Case Revisions, the Court is inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no Appeal preferred. - The Assessing Officer given a letter, dated 26.04.2016, discharging two bank guarantees, which were furnished by the petitioner, for a sum of ₹ 70,08,501/- and & .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

matter, obviously, the Assessing Officer would not have given such letters, discharging the bank guarantees. - Direction given to the respondent to consider the petitioner's representations, dated 03.11.2015, 06.11.2015, 27.01.2016, 29.02.2016 and 05.04.2016, and effect refund of the admissible amount in accordance with law within a period of six weeks - petition dismissed - decided in favor of petitioner. - Writ Petition No. 23573 of 2016 - Dated:- 31-8-2016 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For 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

s 2004-05 and, 2005-06, under the provisions of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. 3. On 01.08.2016, when the case came up for admission, the submission made by the learned Additional Government Pleader was that Appeal has been preferred as against the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, in Tax Case (Revision) Nos.94 to 96 of 2014, dated 10.12.2014. Since he did not have written instructions, the matter was directed to be listed on 08.08.2016. On 08.08.2016, when the c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

etitioner has produced a letter, given by the Advocate on record, in the Hon'ble Supreme Court, dated 29.08.2016, which is to the following effect:- "Sir, This is to confirm that the undersigned had filed the Caveat Petition against the captioned judgment on December 04, 2015. The said Caveat was thereafter renewed from time to time, i.e., on February 02, 2016, Ma 02, 2016, and July 29, 2016. I have not been served with any Petition for Special Leave to Appeal against the captioned judg .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ecord, and accordingly, the same is placed on record. 4. In terms of the above letter, there is nothing to show that the Appeal has been preferred as against the order passed in the Tax Case Revisions. 5. Facts of the case, which are necessary to be taken note of, are that, the assessment orders were passed by the second respondent, for the relevant years on 30.03.2007 and 22.11.2007, wherein, tax liability of the petitioner was enhanced and penalty was levied. This was challenged by the petitio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

#39;s classification of certain products of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Tribunal on the limited scope, sofar as it relates to the classification of the petitioner's multi function network printers, by filing Tax Case Revisions before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, which were taken on file in T.C.R.Nos.94 to 96 of 2014. The Hon'ble Division Bench, by a common order, dated 10.12.2014, allowed the Tax Case Revisions, and the oper .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

computer and also has got scanning facility for the very same function of input and output device and therefore, it is clearly a peripheral . 19. In the present case also, we find that the goods in question partake the character of peripheral of a computer and therefore, it is classifiable under Entry 18 (i) of Part B of Schedule I of TNGST. 20. For the foregoing reasons, we allow these revisions by answering the core issue formulated for consideration in these Revisions in favour of the assess .....

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