TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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 denies transfer request under TNVAT Act, intervenes in flawed assessment, directs redo</h1> The court rejected the transfer request of a registered dealer under the TNVAT Act, who accused the second respondent of illegal actions. The petitioner ... Jurisdiction - AO - Transfer of case from the second respondent to some other Assessing Officer - petitioner case is that they had not received assessment order - Held that: - there is record to indicate that Mr.Jothi has been regularly receiving copies of the orders on behalf of the petitioner. Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plea raised by the petitioner that he has not received the assessment order is given up. This stand is taken on record and it is held that the petitioner has received the assessment order. Whether the allegation made against second respondent in paragraph No.8(d) was justified? - Held that: - the petitioner filed an affidavit dated 08.08.2017, withdrawing all those allegations against the second respondent. This affidavit is placed on record and the allegation against the second respondent in paragraph 8(d) stands deleted. In the light of the above, the question of transferring the case from the second respondent does not arise and the prayer sought for in the writ petition is to be rejected. Petition dismissed - prayer sought for to transfer the case is rejected - decided against petitioner. Issues:1. Transfer of case from one Assessing Officer to another.2. Allegations of illegal gratification against the second respondent.3. Assessment order passed without due opportunity to the petitioner.Transfer of Case:The petitioner, a registered dealer under the TNVAT Act, sought the transfer of their case from the second respondent to another Assessing Officer, alleging that the second respondent had attached their bank account for tax recovery without proper authority. Additionally, the petitioner accused the second respondent of demanding illegal gratification. The Court examined the situation, reviewed original files, and found evidence that the petitioner had received assessment orders despite claiming non-receipt. Ultimately, the petitioner withdrew the allegations against the second respondent, leading to the rejection of the transfer request.Allegations of Illegal Gratification:Initially, the petitioner made serious allegations of illegal gratification against the second respondent in the affidavit. However, after further examination and arguments, the petitioner withdrew all such allegations in a subsequent affidavit dated 08.08.2017. Consequently, the Court accepted the withdrawal of these allegations, and the issue was resolved without further action.Assessment Order Issue:Upon reviewing the original files, the Court noted discrepancies in the assessment order for the year 2013-14 under the TNVAT Act. It was found that the assessment order passed on 18.07.2016, alleging sales suppression, was issued without providing the petitioner with a proper opportunity to respond. Despite the petitioner not explicitly seeking to quash the order, the Court intervened due to the violation of natural justice principles. The Court set aside the order dated 18.07.2016 and directed the Commercial Tax Officer to issue a show cause notice, allow the petitioner to present objections, provide a personal hearing, and redo the assessment in compliance with the law. Additionally, if no tax dues are found, the recovered amount from the petitioner would be adjusted. The Court dismissed the writ petition but provided directions to the petitioner's Assessing Officer for further proceedings.Conclusion:The judgment addressed the issues of transferring the case, allegations of illegal gratification, and the assessment order passed without adequate opportunity for the petitioner. While the transfer request was rejected, the withdrawal of allegations and intervention regarding the flawed assessment order were significant outcomes of the judgment. The Court's directions aimed to rectify the procedural errors and ensure a fair assessment process for the petitioner.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
