New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2017 (1) TMI 401 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

2017 (1) TMI 401 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - TMI - Jurisdiction - reorganisation of Department - whether the 1st respondent is aware of the fact that already for the same assessment years, orders have been passed by the 2nd respondent? - Held that: - The 1st respondent has informed that the files do not disclose the facts nor he was apprised of the same and therefore, unaware about the earlier orders passed by the 2nd respondent. Thus, taking into account all the above facts and circumstances, the imp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Mr.P.Rajkumar For the Respondents : Mr.K.Venkatesh ORDER Heard Mr.P.Rajkumar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Venkatesh, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and with the consent on either side, the Writ Petitions are taken for disposal. 2. All these Writ Petitions have been filed by the petitioner, challenging the assessment orders for the years 2006-07 to 2010-11 under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006 (TNVAT) Act. Since common issu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

risdiction of the 1st respondent. The impugned orders in these writ petitions are orders of revision of assessment under the TNVAT Act exercising powers under Section 22(5) of the TNVAT Act for the relevant assessment years. 5. The impugned orders have not been questioned on factual grounds, but, only on the ground that they are without jurisdiction on account of certain peculiar facts and circumstances. The impugned orders have been passed by referring to a notice dated 12.01.2016. Admittedly, .....

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 orders of assessment by invoking Section 84 of the TNVAT Act. The said petitions were dismissed by an order dated 23.02.2015, since the petitioner's authorized representative did not appear before the 2nd respondent. These orders were put to challenge by the petitioner in W.P.Nos.34093 to 34102 of 2016 and the said writ petitions were disposed of by a common order dated 28.09.2016 by setting aside the orders passed by the Revisional Authority subject to condition that the petitioner rem .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

have been initiated by the 1st respondent in respect of the same assessment years over which the 2nd respondent has already passed orders. 8. When the case came up for admission, this Court directed the learned Government Advocate to get instructions as to whether the 1st respondent is aware of the fact that already for the same assessment years, orders have been passed by the 2nd respondent. 9. The 1st respondent has informed that the files do not disclose the facts nor he was apprised of the s .....

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