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 upholds direction for fresh consideration in TNVAT Act rectification appeals for 2008-09 and 2009-10.</h1> <h3>M/s. Madras Hotel Ashoka (P) Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT)</h3> The High Court dismissed the Writ Appeals challenging the rejection of rectification applications under the TNVAT Act for assessment years 2008-09 and ... Principles of Natural Justice - ROM application rejected by an non-speaking order - Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 - Held that: - When orders have been passed in the rectification petitions, setting aside the same, with the above directions, the contention of the appellant that the writ Court should have set aside the assessment orders, dated 29.11.2013 also, cannot be accepted. From the grounds, it could be deduced that the appellant requires this Court to do the exercise, as to whether, inclusion of purchase turnover in the assessment for years 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively, is correct or not, which exercise has been directed to be done by the assessing officer. Appeal dismissed. Issues:Challenge to order in Writ Appeal regarding rectification of errors in assessment orders for years 2008-09 and 2009-10 under TNVAT Act.Analysis:1. The appellants, hoteliers registered under TNVAT Act, filed returns for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10. After show cause notices, assessment orders were passed. Rectification petitions under Section 84 of the Act were filed, but were rejected on 24.12.2013. Writ petitions challenged assessment orders focusing on purchase turnover and sale of assets issues.2. Writ Court noted that Assessing Officer accepted objections for exempted sales but still included purchase turnover taxable under Section 12. Appellants argued this inclusion was an error apparent on record. They also disputed tax demand on sale of assets, claiming it was based on cost of assets sold, not sale value.3. Appellants sought rectification under Section 84 for these errors, but respondent rejected it without proper reasoning. Writ Court found lack of reasoning in the rejection order and directed fresh consideration by the respondent, including a personal hearing and a speaking order on the identified issues.4. Respondent's counter affidavit was found inconsistent with assessment orders granting exemptions. Writ Court observed lack of proper application of mind in the counter affidavit.5. Writ Court's order set aside the rejection of rectification application and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Appellants appealed this decision, arguing various grounds including double taxation, lack of jurisdiction, and errors in the assessment orders.6. The High Court dismissed the Writ Appeals, emphasizing that the rectification orders dated 24.12.2013 were challenged in the writ petitions, and the direction for fresh consideration by the Assessing Officer was appropriate. The Court refused to set aside the assessment orders dated 29.11.2013, as the rectification orders merged with them.This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, the arguments presented by the parties, the findings of the Writ Court, and the final decision of the High Court in the Writ Appeals.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
