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 sets aside assessment order for 2004-05, emphasizing proper examination of Form F Declarations.</h1> <h3>M/s. Lux Hosieries Industries Ltd. Tirupur Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, North Assessment Circle, Tirupur. and The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai-5.</h3> M/s. Lux Hosieries Industries Ltd. Tirupur Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, North Assessment Circle, Tirupur. and The Principal Commissioner and ... Issues:Challenge to assessment order for the assessment year 2004-05 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.Analysis:The petitioner, a registered dealer in hosiery garments, contested an assessment order dated 26.2.2007 for the assessment year 2004-05. The assessment scrutinized the petitioner's purchases of hosiery materials, stock transfers, consignment sales, and pre-export sales. The claim for exemption on pre-export sales was accepted, supported by Form H and other evidence under Section 5(3) of the Act. However, the exemption claim for consignment sales and stock transfers was partially allowed, with a portion of the claim disbelieved due to quick subsequent sales, leading to the assessment order.The crux of the issue revolved around the examination of Form F Declarations filed by the dealer. The court emphasized that extraneous reasons should not influence the assessment of Form F Declarations. Referring to the decision in A.Dhandapani Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, the court outlined the limited scope of inquiry under Section 6A(2) of the Act. The court stressed that the authority must focus on verifying the truth of particulars in Form F, considering additional evidence provided by the dealer, and could request further information to ascertain the accuracy of the declaration.The court highlighted the failure of the first respondent to conduct the necessary inquiry as directed by previous judgments, notably the decision in A.Dhandapani Vs. State of Tamil Nadu. Due to this lapse, the court ruled to set aside the impugned assessment order and remit the matter back to the first respondent for a proper examination under Section 6A(2) of the Act, following due notice and providing an opportunity for a personal hearing. The court allowed the writ petition, with no costs incurred in the process.
TaxTMI 