TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 438X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Deputy Commissioner (CT) legal and acceptable? - Held that: - the power of suo motu revision has been conferred on the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The procedure adopted by the respondent as well as the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is wholly illegal - respondent directed to effect refund of the tax, as per the refund order - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the respondent completed the assessment, by order dated 04.06.2015, and the excess of tax collected from the petitioner has been estimated at ₹ 39,33,672/-, for which, the respondent issued 'Form-P', which is the notice of the refund order, stating that a sum of ₹ 39,33,672/- is refundable to the petitioner. Though the said order came to be passed, no further action was taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings of the Deputy Commissioner (CT), dated 11.04.2016 has to be held to be without jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the petitioner sent a detailed objection, on 04.05.2016, pointing out, as to how they are entitled for refund, based on facts and records. Inspite of having received such a reply, instead of granting refund, the respondent has addressed, a letter to the Additional Commissioner, Public R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies raised by the Deputy Commissioner (CT), in his letter, dated 11.04.2016, is incorrect and unacceptable and he passed the order that would amount to reviewing the order of assessment dated 04.06.2015, undoubtedly the Act does not contemplate such a procedure, though the power of suo motu revision has been conferred on the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The procedure adopted by the resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
