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

2016 (11) TMI 299 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

2016 (11) TMI 299 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - TMI - Reversal of ITC on purchases effected by Registration Cancelled Dealers - Reversal of ITC on the sale effected to the dealers who are doing contract in SEZ unit - Tax liability on sale of Pavers and Sale of Asset (Car Sale) - Held that: - the petitioner stated that selling dealers might have paid the tax well in advance and merely because there are some differences on the reported turnover of the selling dealers and purchases reported by the petition .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

& W.M.P.Nos.22382 to 22390 of 2016 - Dated:- 27-7-2016 - MR. T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. For The Petitioner : Mr.R.Kumar For The Respondent : Mr.S.Manokaran Sundaram Addl.Govt.Pleader COMMON ORDER Heard Mr.R.Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Manokaran Sundaram, learned Additional Government Pleader accepting notice on behalf of the respondents and with the consent of learned counsel appearing on either side, these writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. 2.The petitioner .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ement Wing, wherein they had reported certain defects. Referring to the said report and without furnishing copy of the same, the respondent has stated that at the time of surprise inspection, the Enforcement Wing has pointed out the variations in respect of Annexure-I of the buyer and Annexure-II of the seller. Pointing out the same, the petitioner was called upon to produce the break up details for figures mentioned in the respective invoices. The petitioner was granted fifteen days time to fil .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cision of this Court, in the case of SRI VINAYAGA AGENCIES v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) [(2013) 60 VST 283], the petitioner stated that selling dealers might have paid the tax well in advance and merely because there are some differences on the reported turnover of the selling dealers and purchases reported by the petitioner, it cannot be construed that the selling dealers have not paid tax to the Department. Reliance was also placed on the same decision (SRI VINAYAGA AGENCIES), for the conten .....

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 in terms of such Judgment. Along with the objections, the petitioner enclosed the Purchase Register for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2014-15 upto July, 2014 for reference. The petitioner enclosed parawise breakup details of Annexure II of the Sellers for all the nine assessment years. After receiving those details, the respondent issued separate notices, proposing to levy penalty under section 27(4) of the Act. 6.The respondent proceeded to complete the assessment and passed the impugned or .....

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