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 tax assessment orders, directs fresh notice & opportunity for objections.</h1> <h3>D.S. Balachandran Versus The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, O/o. The Principal and Special Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, The Assistant Commissioner (CT) – III</h3> D.S. Balachandran Versus The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, O/o. The Principal and Special Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, The Assistant Commissioner ... Issues:Challenge to impugned proceedings for tax assessment and penalty under TNVAT Act, 2006 based on surprise inspection, additional proposals confirmed without serving on the petitioner, violation of principles of natural justice.Analysis:The petitioner, a dealer in iron scraps, filed returns for assessment years but faced proceedings for suppression of taxable turnover and penalty under TNVAT Act based on a surprise inspection. The second respondent issued a Pre-Revision Notice, initially with five proposals, but later confirmed additional proposals without serving them on the petitioner. The petitioner alleged non-service of additional proposals and lack of opportunity to object, leading to the current challenge.The Government Advocate argued that despite sending notice for objections and final hearing, the petitioner did not appear, justifying the confirmation of additional proposals. The respondents claimed large-scale tax evasion based on web-site data and argued that the dealer had knowledge of the additional proposals, justifying the confirmation without serving them. The Government Advocate sought dismissal of the writ petitions.Upon considering the submissions, the Court found that the second respondent confirmed additional proposals without following proper procedure, imposing tax without serving specific proposals on the petitioner. The Court referenced a similar case where exceeding the original proposal in assessment proceedings was deemed a violation of law. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were remanded for fresh consideration by the second respondent.In line with the judgment, the Court directed the second respondent to issue a fresh notice with all proposals and materials, allowing the petitioner to submit objections and affording a personal hearing within specified timelines. The writ petitions were allowed, no costs were imposed, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
TaxTMI 