Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

L. Shenbagarajan Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Theni-II Assessment Circle, Theni.

2016 (11) TMI 298 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Reversal of ITC - Escape assessment - Demand - Penalty - Pre-assessment notice - Held that: - in the impugned final assessment order, is not able to show any line of reason as to how the petitioner deserved the reversal of ITC and also how the petitioner has committed any error in respect of levy of purchase tax under Section 12 of the Act - there is no logical finding on the part of the Authority to conclude against the petitioner de hors the objections raised by him, is inclined to set aside t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

impugned was passed without a final conclusion by the Commercial Tax Officer, Theni-II Assessment Circle - At any rate, being a quasi judicial authority, when pre-assessment notice was issued relating to the estimated turnover of ₹ 8,70,258/-, the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to show cause for levying of taxes and penalty with regard to the turnover - Petition allowed by way of remand. - W.P(MD)Nos.11911,11912 and 11913 of 2016 and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.9116,9117 and 9118 of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

by which, the said Authority by over-ruling the objections given by the petitioner relating to the taxable turnover of the year 2008-2009, under TNVAT Act, reversed the ITC and thereafter, called upon the petitioner to pay a sum of ₹ 4,06,782/- with the penalty of ₹ 9869/- under Section 27(3) and one another penalty of ₹ 96,227/- under Section 27(4) of the TNVAT Act. 3. It is the case of the petitioner, a Dealer in cotton seeds, during the process of ginning the Cotton Kappas, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

upon the petitioner on the reversal of ITC, he sent a detailed reply on 22.01.2016, making it clear that reversal of ITC on the entire purchase of cotton under Section 19(9)(iii)is not valid. With regard to the issue about levying of purchase tax under Section 12 of the Act, the petitioner replied that according to Entry 41 of part B of I-schedule to TANVAT Act, declared goods as specified in Section 14 of CST Act, is taxable at the rate of 4% on the point of sale of cotton, namely, all kinds of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of reason has been mentioned for the reply given by the petitioner to the pre-assessment notice. The Commercial Tax Officer, Theni-II, has stated formally that the petitioner was given a personal hearing in the office at 28.01.2016. Further, the order does not reflect application of mind by the authority to reach the conclusion for reversal of the ITC and also for levying penalty under Sections 27(3) and 27(4) of the TANVAT Act. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned order may have to be set asi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

under Section 12 of the Act. Therefore this Court, by considering the fact that there is no logical finding on the part of the Authority to conclude against the petitioner de hors the objections raised by him, is inclined to set aside the impugned pre-assessment order. 6. It is well-settled law that the Commercial Tax Officer while discharging his quasi judicial power is required to exercise the said power only through a reasoned speaking order. In the present case, not even a single one sound .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2,380/- at 4% besides levying a penalty for a sum of ₹ 2,68,944/- was levied. 8. In this case, as rightly pointed out, when the objections given by the petitioner to the pre-assessment notice dated 11.12.2015 that the respondent ought to have issued notice of assessment under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, separately, since it is a different enactment, nowhere, the Commercial Tax Officer has answered the same. Therefore, for want of reasons, the impugned order is also liable to be set aside. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version