TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>High Court Quashes Tax Demand, Orders Reconsideration</h1> <h3>M/s. Bauer - L & T Geo JV Rep. by its Authorized Signatory Versus The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer Chennai</h3> The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order demanding tax and penalty for detained goods. The Court found that the ... Inter-state sales - detention of goods on the ground that the petitioner is an un-registered dealer in Tamil Nadu - Held that: - there appears to be a non-application of mind, on the part of the respondent in passing the impugned order - Absolutely there is no consideration of the objections raised by the petitioner dated 25.03.2017, apart from the fact that the order itself was passed without waiting till 27.03.2017, for the petitioner to react on the notice dated 27.03.2017, even assuming that the reply given by the petitioner dated 25.03.2017 has not reached the respondent before passing the impugned order - matter allowed by way of remand. Issues:Challenge to tax and penalty demand for goods detention based on registration status and inter-state sales.Analysis:The petitioner, an Unincorporated Joint Venture firm executing a project in Andhra Pradesh, challenged a tax and penalty demand of Rs. 1,09,41,969 for goods detained by the respondent in Tamil Nadu. The petitioner contended that since the goods were imported for project use in Andhra Pradesh, no sale or purchase occurred in Tamil Nadu. The respondent alleged that the petitioner's unregistered status in Tamil Nadu made the transaction an inter-state sale. The petitioner objected to the lack of consideration of their objections in the impugned order, leading to a non-application of mind by the respondent.The High Court found merit in the petitioner's argument, noting the failure of the respondent to address the objections raised by the petitioner and the premature passing of the impugned order before the notice period expired. The Court concluded that there was a lack of proper consideration by the respondent and ordered the matter to be reconsidered. The writ petition was allowed, setting aside the impugned order and remitting the case back to the respondent for a fresh decision after hearing the petitioner's objections. The respondent was directed to complete the process within seven days from the date of the Court's order.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
