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>Court allows belated submission of books of accounts after rejecting extension request. Assessing officer directed to act.</h1> <h3>M/s. DHANYA TRADERS Versus COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER KVAT CIRCLE-II. ERNAKULAM & Others</h3> The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to reject the petitioner's application for an extension of time to produce books of accounts. However, ... Non production of books of accounts before the assessing authority within specified time - KGST Act - application for enlargement of time rejected - Held that:- Since the AO has not passed any consequential orders none will be prejudiced if the petitioner is allowed to produce the books of accounts before the 1st respondent even at this belated stage. Therefore direct to petitioner to produce the books of accounts as directed in Ext.P3 order of the Tribunal on or before 31/1/2013. If books of accounts are produced as above, the assessing officer will pass orders as directed by the Tribunal. It is directed that, in the event the petitioner fails to produce the books of accounts as above, it will be open to the 1st respondent to pass consequential orders. Issues:1. Compliance with Tribunal's order to produce books of accounts within a specified time frame.2. Rejection of application for enlargement of time by the Tribunal.3. Justification for non-production of books of accounts by the petitioner.4. Lack of consequential orders passed by the assessing officer.Analysis:1. The petitioner, a dealer under the KGST Act, challenged an assessment order for the year 2001-02. The Tribunal directed the petitioner to produce books of accounts before the assessing authority within three months from the date of the order. The petitioner submitted the order to the assessing officer on a later date, claiming willingness to comply. However, due to the expiration of the specified period, the petitioner sought an extension through an application, which was rejected by the Tribunal (Ext.P6 order).2. The Court noted that the responsibility to produce the books of accounts within the specified time rested solely with the petitioner as per the Tribunal's order (Ext.P3). The Court agreed with the Tribunal's decision to reject the extension application, emphasizing the petitioner's obligation to comply with the original directive.3. Despite upholding the Tribunal's decision, the Court acknowledged the assessing officer's failure to pass any consequential orders as of the present date. As no prejudice would arise from allowing the petitioner to produce the books of accounts belatedly, the Court directed the petitioner to do so by a specified date. The assessing officer was instructed to pass orders accordingly based on the Tribunal's directive.4. In conclusion, the Court disposed of the writ petition by permitting the petitioner to produce the books of accounts within the extended timeline. The assessing officer was directed to act upon the submission of the accounts, while the petitioner was instructed to provide a copy of the judgment and the writ petition to the assessing officer for compliance.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
