9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 925X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dded Tax Act, 2006. In respect of assessment year 2005 - 2006, a pre-assessment notice was issued to the petitioner on 12.01.2007 making certain proposals and calling upon them to file their objections. The petitioner responded to such notice, filed the objections and placed materials in support of their contentions. Consequently, an order of assessment, dated 22.02.2007 was passed by the Assessment Authority by determining the total and taxable turn over as Rs. 1,88,41,585/- and Rs. 31,39,664/- respectively, thereby determining the tax and surcharge as Rs. 55,762/- and Rs. 2,437/- respectively. The petitioner has paid the said tax and surcharge, as reflected in the said order of the assessment itself. Thereafter, on 27.07.2007, a notice wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the proposals made in the notice dated 27.07.2007. 3. The proceedings initiated by the respondent under Section 55 of the TNGST Act by passing an order under such provisions on 21.10.2016 is challenged in this writ petition mainly by contending that the same is barred by limitation as provided under Section 55 (1) of the said Act. Even otherwise on merits, it is contended that the petitioner is not a Star Hotel, as presumed by the respondent, and on the other hand, it is only recognized by the ITDC. Insofar as the allegation that the petitioner had purchased snacks for Rs. 15,15,099/- and that they did not produce purchase details is concerned, it is contended that such allegation is totally and factually wrong, in view of the fact that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment and the notice for revision dated 27.07.2007 to contend that the respondent has committed error apparent on the face of such proceedings without considering the fact that the petitioner has already furnished the purchase details with regard to purchase of snacks. 6. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent supported the impugned order by reiterating the contentions raised therein. He submitted that when once the notice was issued by following the provisions of law, the petitioner is not entitled to claim that the proceedings is barred by limitation. 7. Heard both sides. 8. As the facts and various circumstances of the case are extracted in detail supra, I am not reiterating the same once again. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter in respect of such items of purchase of snacks. 10. While coming to the next issue with regard to the claim of the respondent that the petitioner-Hotel must be a Star Hotel, a perusal of the notice dated 27.07.2007 would show that the respondent himself has admitted that the original order of assessment was made under Section 3D(1) of the TNGST Act, 1959, instead of levying under Item 29 of Part C of the First schedule to the said Act. It is clearly stated by the authority in the said notice that the assessment made under Section 3D(1) of the TNGST Act, was not in order. The very observation made by the officer, would undoubtedly indicate that he made mistake in the said assessment by levying lower rate of tax and therefore, he wanted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
