TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court quashes order, stresses fair hearing. Case on taxable turnover, 'goods' definition, revisional power.</h1> The court allowed the appeal, quashed the Joint Commissioner's order, and remitted the case for further proceedings. The court emphasized the importance ... - Issues:1. Assessment of taxable turnover on second sales turnover of iron and steel scrap.2. Interpretation of the definition of 'goods' under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act.3. Exercise of suo motu revisional power by the Joint Commissioner.Analysis:1. The case involved a dispute over the assessment of taxable turnover on the second sales turnover of iron and steel scrap by the assessee, who were building demolishing contractors. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner had deleted a portion of the turnover, but the Joint Commissioner held that the assessing officer had rightly taxed the amount, leading to an appeal by the assessee.2. The crux of the issue revolved around the interpretation of the definition of 'goods' under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The assessee contended that the sale of scraps from demolished buildings constituted a second sale entitled to exemption. The court referred to past judgments to analyze similar situations involving condemned articles and old materials, emphasizing the distinction between movable and immovable property in determining tax liability.3. The judgment delved into the exercise of suo motu revisional power by the Joint Commissioner. It highlighted the importance of affording the assessee an opportunity to present objections and contentions before reversing an appellate order. The court stressed the need for a fair hearing to address any defects in the assessment order and ensure justice in the revision process.4. Ultimately, the court found that the Joint Commissioner's order was vitiated due to the lack of opportunity given to the assessee to present their case effectively. The order was quashed, and the case was remitted back to the Joint Commissioner for a fresh hearing. The court directed a reevaluation of whether the first sale involved components or the building itself, determining the applicability of relevant legal precedents to the situation.5. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, the Joint Commissioner's order was quashed, and the case was remitted for further proceedings. No costs were awarded in the judgment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
