TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 624X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s are passed? HELD THAT:- The very purpose of availing rectification power through Ext.P4 is only to set this anomalous situation straight. This Court is persuaded to set aside Ext.P5 and remit the matter to first respondent for consideration and disposal in accordance with law - With a view to give quietus to the other procedural aspects which is being canvassed by the petitioner, the Court directs the first respondent to give soft copy under an acknowledgment of the details on which the first respondent intends to rely on for determining the inter- State purchases, within two weeks from today. Petition allowed by way of remand. - WP(C). No. 14837 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 5-7-2019 - MR S. V. BHATTI, J. For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pt pending. 4. The first respondent thereafter made Ext.P3 order dated 25.07.2018. The petitioner after noticing a few apparent errors in computing the alleged inter-State purchases and other mistakes in Ext.P3 order availed the remedy of rectification through Ext.P4. Ext.P4 is decided through Ext.P5. Ext.P5 reads thus: The assessment in respect of M/s. Marymatha Construction Company has been completed for the year 14-15 vide order read 1st above by my predecessor. On 18.03.2019, the dealer filed a letter for rectification on the ground that there crept some errors and omissions in the assessment order. The contentions are verified. Regarding the purchase suppression, this office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the request made in Ext.P2 which is already excerpted is not acceded to and on the contrary a few findings are recorded imputing knowledge of the contents of the alleged inter-State purchases. The first respondent filed statement and replying to violation of principles of natural justice and not giving the details of inter-State purchases, states as follows: 3. It is submitted that above pre assessment notice dated 22.11.2016 was issued to the petitioner in connection with the difference in rate of tax, difference in particulars disclosed before the income tax authorities, receipt of two OR files from the Intelligence wing, non receipt of the proof of exemption and the difference in purchase turnover. The petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner since it was noted as an annexure in the pre-assessment notice. 6. Therefore, the case of first respondent is that Exts.P3 and P5 do not suffer from infirmity, much less illegality. It is also contended that no special ground is made out for entertaining the writ petition against Exts.P3 and P5. 7. The learned counsel have substantially reiterated the stand taken in their respective pleadings. For brevity and also convenience this Court refrains from adverting to these details once again. The short issue for consideration is whether Exts.P3 and P5 orders are legal and conform to the requirements of law and alternatively whether the first respondent is justified in rejecting the request of Ext.P4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
