Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2022 (5) TMI 307

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... amil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and earlier Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Between 07.02.2016 and 09.02.2016, the place of business of the appellant was inspected by the Enforcement Wing Officials and they alleged various defects including purchase omission and consequential sales suppression, which was objected to by the appellant. While so, without issuing any notice, the appellant was served with the assessment orders dated 28.03.2018 for the assessment years from 2012-13 to 2015-16 under the TNVAT Act, 2006, levying tax along with penalty. Besides this, the first respondent passed the assessment order dated 28.03.2018 for the assessment year 2015-16 levying entry tax and penalty on the paver finisher purchased by the a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s entitled to treat the impugned orders as show cause notices and submit their objections within a period of two weeks therefrom. On receipt of the objections, the respondent shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and redo the assessments in accordance with law. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to comply with the condition imposed, the benefit of this order will not enure to the petitioner and the writ petitions will stand automatically dismissed giving liberty to the respondent to initiate recovery proceedings. On the other hand, if the petitioner complies with the said condition, the demand of the balance tax and penalty for the assessment years from 2012-13 to 2015-16 shall remain stayed till fresh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... be filed by the appellant, to quash the same. By order dated 24.03.2022, the said writ petition was disposed of by the learned Judge, in the following terms: (i) That the matter is remitted back to the respondent for re-consideration as directed by the earlier order of this Court dated 19.06.2018 on condition that, the petitioner shall deposit or pay the 50% of Rs.42,00,000/- as indicated above within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (ii) Failing which, the Revenue is not precluded from proceeding further pursuant to the impugned order of attachment and for any other recovery mode to recover the tax due. (iii) Once the 50% of the said amount as indicated above is paid within the time stipulated, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... M/s.JKM Graphics Solutions Private Limited, by order dated 01.03.2017 in WP.No.105/2016 etc. cases. In respect of the demand raised for the year 2015-16 on entry tax, it is submitted that the same cannot be sustained because the paver finisher is not liable for entry tax as the said machinery is not a motor vehicle liable for registration under the Motor Vehicles Act and that, a Co-ordinate Bench of this court in the case of RDS Projects v. Commercial Tax Officer, 8 VST 574, has held that 'entry tax is not payable in respect of the hydraulic excavator because they are not motor vehicles falling within the definition of the term as defined under section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988'. Stating so, the learned counsel submitte .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is not in dispute that the appellant has paid 15% of the disputed tax, as directed by the learned Judge, in the order dated 19.06.2018 in WP.Nos.13329 to 13332/2018. However, what was disputed on the side of the respondents is the objections dated 02.08.2018 said to have been filed by the appellant. In view of the same, the learned Judge directed the appellant to pay another 50% of Rs.42,00,000/- representing the balance tax demand & penalty, for the purpose of lifting the attachment made on its bank account. It is the grievance of the appellant that they have been facing serious financial crisis and due to the attachment of the bank account, they could not run their business and meet out the day today activities. 8.Though the order of th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates