Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (10) TMI 896 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

2016 (10) TMI 896 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - TMI - Jurisdiction of action taken after 20 years without providing opportunity of being heard - TNVAT Act, 2006 - order of assessment or any notice not served to petitioner - action taken after 20 years - whether the impugned order of demand tenable? - Held that: - this impugned proceeding was without proper opportunity to the petitioner, and it is also barred by limitation. Above all, it has to be pointed out that the respondent would be entitled to effe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

reasonable period for exercising the revisional jurisdiction in terms of Section 21 (1) of the Act'. - Court has no hesitation to hold that the impugned order is barred by limitation, and the action initiated for recovery of dues after about 20 years is highly unreasonable, rendering the impugned demand as unsustainable in the eye of law - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - Writ Petition No.31962 of 2015 M.P.No.1 of 2015 - Dated:- 29-8-2016 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the P .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the tax for the assessment years, 1993-94 to 1994-95, under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. 3. Primarily, the impugned order has been challenged on two grounds. Firstly, the impugned demand has been issued after 20 years, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, and without serving any order of assessment. Secondly, it is contended that, even assuming that the respondent is entitled to take action by revising the assessment, under Section 16 of the Act, it has to be .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

addressee was out of station. The assessment order sent to the Mill premises was returned with an endorsement "Door Locked". To support such contentions, original files were circulated to this Court, and the learned Additional Government Pleader pointed out that the postal acknowledgment shows that the letter was delivered on 14.12.1995 on the Partner, Mrs.Geetha. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner disputed the postal acknowledgment, and filed a reply affidavit to 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

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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