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 807 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

2016 (11) TMI 807 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - TMI - Failure to file objections in response to notice - request for one more opportunity of being heard - Held that: - the assessment order has been made only on surmises and conjunctures and not based on the books of accounts and the penalty is also levied more than 150% of the tax component. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we are of the view that the petitioner has to be given one more opportunity to produce the accounts before the assessing offi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

6 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.13856 to 13861 of 2016 - Dated:- 6-10-2016 - MR. M.V.MURALIDARAN, J. For The Petitioner : Mr.K.Soundararajan For The Respondent : Mr.R.Karthikeyan Additional Government Pleader COMMON ORDER These Writ Petitions have been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent in TIN Nos.33853803091/2010-2011, 33853803091/2011-2012, 33853803091 /2012-2013, 33853803091/2013-2014, 33853803091/2014-2015, 33853803091/201 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

respondent. 3. Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent. By consent, all the Writ petitions are taken up for final disposal, since all the Writ petitions are filed by the same petitioner for different years of assessment. 4. The petitioner is a dealer in Timber and Hardware items and registered dealer under Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act 2006. The petitioner is an assessee on the file of the respondent herein. During the assessment years 2010-2011, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tion conducted by the Enforcement Wing Officers on 19.11.2015 and during the course of inspection, they had verified the Form-I-1 and they compared the purchases declared by the petitioner with that of other dealers' Annexure-II through the Department Web Site and came to the conclusion that the petitioner herein had effected taxable purchases of ₹ 18,81,391/-, ₹ 35,53,952/-, ₹ 10,37,046/-, ₹ 18,14,183/-, ₹ 15,23,865/- and ₹ 3,56,974/- respectively. The pe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

1/2010-2011, 33853803091/2011-2012,33853803091/2012-2013,33853803091/2013-2014 33853803091/2014-2015 and 33853803091/2015-2016 dated 11.07.2016 had estimated the tax due at ₹ 2,63,372/-, ₹ 5,58,481/-, ₹ 1,67,800/-, 1,67,800/-, ₹ 2,35,036/- and ₹ 51,990/- respectively and prepared to impose a penalty at 150% of the tax due under Sections 27(3) and 22(5) of the TN VAT Act. 6. On 12.08.2016, the present impugned order has been passed by the respondent stating that 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

t taking into consideration, the respondent passed the impugned order. Therefore, the petitioner sought for one more opportunity to file their objections and also to conduct an enquiry. Further, the petitioner relying on the Judgment in 2004-05(10) TNCTJ, (M.Krishnaswamy Vs. TNTST and others), to establish his case. In the said Judgment, paragraph Nos.2 and 3 are relevant and the same is referred as follows:- 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to argue the matter originally as against .....

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