TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
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>Tax Assessment Dispute Rejected: Proper Notice Confirmed, Rectification Application Directed Within 15 Days</h1> <h3>M/s. Nelson Travels Versus Assistant Commissioner (ST) Chennai</h3> HC dismissed the writ petition challenging tax assessment proceedings. The court found adequate hearing notice was provided and directed respondent to ... Challenge to assessment proceedings for the year 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 respectively - seeking direction to respondent to pass fresh orders by rectifying the mistakes - impugned order was passed without providing any opportunity for personal hearing - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It appears that the impugned order came to be passed on 22.06.2023, wherein it has been clearly stated that the notice for personal hearing was provided vide reminders dated 16.11.2022, 28.10.2022 and 15.05.2022. Further, it appears that the petitioner had asked for extension of time on 27.02.2023 and 29.03.2023 and in spite of the same, no reply was filed by the petitioner. This Court is of the considered view that no interference is required with regard to the said impugned order passed by the respondent. Petition disposed off. In the case before the Madras High Court, presided over by THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, the petitioner challenged the assessment proceedings for the fiscal years 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20. The petitioner sought to have the impugned order dated 26.06.2023 rectified, arguing that it was issued without a personal hearing and contained errors. Despite filing a rectification application on 25.07.2023, the petitioner claimed no action had been taken, preventing an appeal.The respondent, represented by Ms. K.Vasanthamala, contended that the petitioner failed to respond to several reminders for a personal hearing, justifying the issuance of the impugned order.The Court, after reviewing the submissions and records, found no need to interfere with the impugned order, noting that adequate notice for a hearing was given. However, the Court directed the respondent to address the rectification application within 15 days and allowed the petitioner to file an appeal if desired. The writ petitions were disposed of with these directions, and related miscellaneous petitions were closed.
TaxTMI 
