9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 1430X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d herein, is extracted below: "8. Since the dispute would require reconsideration by the respondent, this court is of the view that the impugned order can be set aside and the case be remitted back to the respondent for fresh consideration subject to terms. Under these circumstances, the impugned order is quashed subject to the petitioner remitting the amount equivalent to 30% of the disputed tax within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. On such amount being remitted by the petitioner, the respondent shall proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10.In case the petitioner fails to r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant viz., S.Rajasekar, who was managing the affairs and bank accounts, as per clause 7 of the Partnership Deed dated 02.01.2012 passed away on 26.08.2021, due to which, reply to the show cause notice could not be filed by the appellant. On 28.09.2021, the respondent passed the assessment order, confirming the proposal made in the show cause notice and demanded a tax of Rs.50,60,943/- along with interest. Challenging the same, the appellant preferred WP.No.25435 of 2021, which was allowed by the learned Judge, in the terms as extracted above. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant is before this court. 4.According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the respondent without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation, the learned Judge ought not to have directed the appellant to deposit 30% of the disputed tax due as a condition precedent for the same. It is also pointed out that the appellant has already paid the tax for the works contract during the relevant assessment year. On the other hand, it is the stand of the respondent that to protect the interest of the Revenue, the learned Judge imposed such a condition for quashing the assessment order. 8.This court is of the view that the issue involved herein is no longer res integra. A Division Bench of this court in Havea Handles & Components Pvt. Ltd v. the Assistant Commissioner (CT) (FAC), Royapettah II Assessment Circle, Chennai, by judgment dated 04.07.2014 in WA Nos.867 to 869 of 2014, cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
