Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the assessing authority should consider the petitioner's application under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, verify whether the relevant turnover had already been reported and tax paid by the contractors, and pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner.
Analysis: The petitioner sought relief against levy of tax on the footing that tax at source had not been deducted, while asserting that the contractors had represented that they would account for and pay the tax. The Court noted the absence of any statutory duty on the petitioner's assessing authority to directly verify with the contractors' assessing officers, but also observed that the authority should ensure that the same transaction is not taxed twice. To meet that concern, the Court directed a practical course whereby the assessing authority could use its official machinery to verify the factual position or seek the necessary declaration from the other assessing officers. The application under Section 84 was therefore required to be considered on merits after affording personal hearing.
Conclusion: The assessing authority was directed to consider the petitioner's application, afford personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.