TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year 2005 - HELD THAT:- The respondent /Assessing officer in his reply to the petitioner's representation, vide letter bearing Ref.No.1135/2017/A4, dated 15.03.2018, has stated that the copy of the order has not been received by the Commercial Tax Officer, (Enforcement wing) Group III, Coimbatore and the Enforcement Division of Coimbatore also has not received the copy of the order. Although the respondent /jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, has stated that the order of this Court was not received vide communication dated 15.03.2018, the fact remains that the Enforcement Wing had sent summons to the petitioner on 31.01.2018. Thus, there is no truth in the aforesaid communication. The impugned orders have been passed, based on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epartment under the Finance Act, 1994, as early as in the year 2005 and for renting of immovable property, the petitioner has been remitting service tax under the Finance Act. In response to the inspection conducted by the Enforcement Wing, the petitioner had also filed a detailed report prior to the filing of the above Writ Petitions. Since notices dated 02.06.2016 were issued, the petitioner has challenged the same in the above writ petitions. This Court by its order dated 07.10.2016 has passed the following order: 16. There will be a direction to the Commercial Tax Officer (Enforcement) Group III, Coimbatore to consider the petitioner's objections/clarifications dated 08.02.2016, afford an opportunity of person hearing, consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unication dated 15.03.2018, the fact remains that the Enforcement Wing had sent summons to the petitioner on 31.01.2018. 'Thus, there is no truth in the aforesaid communication. Instead of passing orders in accordance with the order passed by this Court on 07.10.2016. The respondent has straight away proceeded to pass the impugned assessment orders and the amounts have been confirmed. It clearly shows that the orders have been passed in violation of the order of this Court dated 07.10.2016. The impugned orders have been passed, based on the notices dated 02.06.2016, which have already been quashed by this court while passing the aforesaid order dated 07.10.2016 in W.P.No.35694 to 35702 of 2016. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
