Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (11) TMI 496

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 16, the same was received by the petitioner only on 6.9.2016. However, even prior to that the impugned order of assessment has been passed on 11.7.2016, despatched belatedly and received by the petitioner on 6.9.2016. Thus, it is evidently clear that there is total violation of principles of natural justice and the second respondent has clearly abdicated his duties as an Assessing Officer. Revision of assessment u/s 84 of the TNVAT Act - Held that: - the AO has to be well aware of the fact that under the provisions of law, he is exercising his jurisdiction, when admittedly he has not passed the order of assessment and there is no Petition u/s 84 of the TNVAT ACT, filed by the dealer or there is no exercise of suo motu power by the second .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that no pre-revision notice was issued to them prior to passing the impugned order dated 11.7.2016. The notice referred to in the said order dated 21.7.2015, was never issued to the petitioner or received by the petitioner. The first respondent had issued a notice dated 22.8.2016, which was dispatched belatedly and received by the petitioner on 6.9.2016. In the said notice issued by the first respondent, which is also for the very same assessment order, the petitioner has been granted fifteen days time to submit their objections, however, even before that second respondent has passed the impugned order dated 11.7.2016, received by the petitioner on 06.9.2016. 4. Though the second respondent has filed a counter affidavit, it may not be n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e revising the assessment under section 27 of the TNVAT Act. 7. This is sought to explained as a misquoting of the provisons of law. The said stand taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit does not merit acceptance, because the Assessing Officer has to be well aware of the fact that under the provisions of law, he is exercising his jurisdiction, when admittedly he has not passed the order of assessment and there is no Petition under section 84 of the TNVAT ACT, filed by the dealer or there is no exercise of suo motu power by the second respondent, reference to section 84 of the Act is wholly unsustainable. Hence, for all the above reasons, this Court is convinced that the impugned order has been passed in utter disregard to th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates