Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Hytek Industries Versus Assistant Commissioner (CT)

2017 (2) TMI 233 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Order for reversing the Input tax credit (ITC) and levy of penalty - order had been passed, without service of notice - notice returned on account of non-availability of address of petitioner - Held that: - the respondent had available in its record, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pass. Therefore, in my view, all avenues of effecting service on petitioner were not exhausted. The respondent's proposal to reverse ITC and levy penalty, consequently, did not get communicated to the petitioner - impugned order set aside - 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

is a writ petition, which is directed against the order dated 07.10.2016. 2. The notice, in this petition, was issued on 24.11.2016. On that date, the petitioner's principal grievance was recorded, which is that, the impugned order had been passe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ioner. 4. This matter was placed before me, on 18.12.2016, when, I had asked the counsel for the respondent to file a counter affidavit accompanied by the postal covers, via which, the notice, if any, was sent to the petitioner, since the stand taken .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

noted, counter affidavit has not been filed, though, as indicated above, a photocopy of the postal cover has been placed before me. 7. Mr.S. Kanmani Annamalai concedes that the endorsement made on the postal cover does not show that notice was return .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that insofar as the impugned order dated 07.10.2016 is concerned, that was served on the petitioner, albeit, at the Delhi address, which reads as follows: "Mr. Davindrakumar Goyal, S-83, Greater Kailash II, 2nd Floor, New Delhi 110 048." 9 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

old, is his business address, one would not have come to such a pass. Therefore, in my view, all avenues of effecting service on petitioner were not exhausted. The respondent's proposal to reverse ITC and levy penalty, consequently, did not get c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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