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>Petitioner to File Objections within 2 Weeks, Respondent to Decide in 4 Weeks. Fair Hearing Emphasized. No Costs.</h1> <h3>M/s. MM Engineers (P) Ltd. Versus The Commercial Tax Officer</h3> M/s. MM Engineers (P) Ltd. Versus The Commercial Tax Officer - TMI, [2013] 62 VST 306 (Mad) Issues:Violation of principles of assessment and natural justice in an order of assessment dated 01.02.2013 made by the revisional authority.Analysis:The petitioner, a company manufacturing Electrically Operated Overhead Factory Cranes and Hoists, challenged an order of assessment dated 01.02.2013, confirming a proposal dated 10.01.2013. The petitioner claimed the order was contrary to assessment principles and violated natural justice. The respondent conducted a Field Audit at the petitioner's premises, leading to a revision notice under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act. The petitioner's reply on 28.06.2010 was followed by a revision notice on 10.01.2013 for the assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09. The petitioner argued that the revision notice was based on the same cause of action as the earlier notice, and the respondent confirmed the proposal without hearing the petitioner, alleging a violation of natural justice.The respondent argued that the petitioner did not object to the revision notice but only requested an adjournment, making the writ petition not maintainable. The court noted the Field Audit, statements recorded, and subsequent revision notices. The impugned order dated 01.02.2013 was based on a statement by the petitioner's Director and an audit report from 20.11.2009. The court observed the tax, penalty, and interest due, with a balance amount of Rs. 14,43,513, and notices issued. The respondent passed the impugned order after the petitioner's letter requesting time, as no objections were filed against the revision notice dated 10.01.2013.The court found that the petitioner did not file objections despite requesting an extension, leading to the respondent confirming the proposal. The court emphasized the availability of an alternative appeal remedy against the impugned order. It noted the petitioner's contention that the respondent did not consider earlier objections and proceeded without acknowledging them. The court highlighted that the petitioner's failure to file objections left no choice for the respondent but to confirm the proposal.To ensure justice, the court directed the petitioner to file objections to the revision notice within two weeks, with the respondent required to consider and decide on the matter within four weeks of receiving the objections. The court closed the case without costs, emphasizing the importance of providing an opportunity for objections and a fair hearing to both parties.
TaxTMI 