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

2017 (5) TMI 925 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

2017 (5) TMI 925 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - TMI - Levy of purchase tax - purchase of unbranded snacks - Held that: - the petitioner produced purchase bills and that it was verified and found in order in respect of proposal of Tax at S.Nos.3 to 7 of the items, out of which S.No.7 admittedly is in respect of purchase tax under Section 7(A) of unbranded (re-sale) at 4%. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioner had produced purchase details in respect of these snacks unbranded item and the same were .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sustained on the ground of limitation as well - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - Writ Petition No. 40361 of 2016, WMP. No. 34430 of 2016 - Dated:- 17-3-2017 - K. Ravichandrabaabu, JJ. For Petitioner : Mr. T. Pramodkumar Chopda For Respondent : Mr.K.Venkatesh ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent dated 21.10.2016, wherein, the proposal made by the respondent under notice dated 27.07.2007 issued under Section 55 of the TNGST Act, 1959, was con .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er of assessment, dated 22.02.2007 was passed by the Assessment Authority by determining the total and taxable turn over as ₹ 1,88,41,585/- and ₹ 31,39,664/- respectively, thereby determining the tax and surcharge as ₹ 55,762/- and ₹ 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 was issued for revision of the assessment, however by claiming the same as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lls were furnished. It was also proposed to levy penalty under Section 12(3)(b) of the said Act. The petitioner gave reply / objections to the said notice on 01.08.2007. They also sought for a personal hearing before passing the revision assessment order, if the objections raised by the petitioner were not accepted. The respondent did not proceed further for nearly nine years. Thereafter, a reminder notice, dated 30.09.2016 was issued to the petitioner calling upon them to file their objections .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ngs 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 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

ot only on the reason that it is barred by limitation, but also on the ground that the same is an outcome of non-application of mind. It is also their case that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of natural justice, as the petitioner was not given personal hearing. 4. A counter affidavit is filed by the respondent, wherein, it is contended that though the notice issued to the petitioner dated 27.07.2007 was quoted as the one issued under Section 55 of the sai .....

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 55(1) of the TNGST Act, submitted that the impugned order passed after a period of five years is barred by limitation. He has also invited my attention to the original order of 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 Advoc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2.2007. There is no dispute to the fact that in the said order of the Assessment, S.No.5 of the commodity was referred to as "snacks unbranded" (re-sale) with the value of ₹ 15,15,099/- and the proposed purchase tax towards the same was referred to under Section 7(A) as 4%. It was also referred to in the said order that the petitioner produced purchase bills and that it was verified and found in order in respect of proposal of Tax at S.Nos.3 to 7 of the items, out of which S.No.7 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

fore, it is evident on the face of the assessment order and the notice for revision itself that the respondent has factually committed mistake in issuing the revision notice in respect of the purchase of unbranded snacks. Therefore, I find that the said claim of the respondent is erroneous on the face of the original order of assessment and the notice issued for revision. Therefore, there is no necessity for the respondent to re-visit the matter in respect of such items of purchase of snacks. 10 .....

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