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 Revision Reconsidered: Orders Set Aside Pending 10% Deposit, Hearing Required for Resolution.</h1> <h3>Tvl. P.C.S. Trades, Rep. by its Proprietor, P.C.S. Govindaraja Perumal Versus The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, The State Tax Officer (FAC), Virudhunagar</h3> Tvl. P.C.S. Trades, Rep. by its Proprietor, P.C.S. Govindaraja Perumal Versus The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, The State Tax Officer (FAC), ... Issues:Challenging impugned Assessment Orders for Assessment Years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 under Section 12 of the TNVAT Act.Analysis:The petitioner challenged the Assessment Orders dated 28.09.2022 for the mentioned Assessment Years, disputing the levy of purchase tax under Section 12 of the TNVAT Act. The petitioner received pre-revision notices since 2020 and had multiple interactions with the authorities, including a personal hearing. Despite the petitioner's requests for more time to file objections and provide evidence, the impugned orders were issued on 28.09.2022. The petitioner argued that the second respondent should have responded to their request for adjournment before passing the orders.The petitioner also highlighted their success in similar issues for the Assessment Year 2013-2014. They filed an application under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act after the impugned orders were passed, which was rejected without considering their representation. The order rejecting the revision request was deemed to have been passed hastily, considering the substantial amounts involved - Rs. 91,46,490 for 2014-2015 and Rs. 68,98,819 for 2015-2016.In light of the circumstances, the court decided to set aside the orders rejecting the petitioner's revision request, subject to the petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed tax within 30 days. The petitioner was instructed to appear for a personal hearing and cooperate with the authorities in producing necessary documents. The second respondent was directed to consider the assessment orders for the years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 while passing fresh orders, if relevant. The Writ Petitions were disposed of with these directions, and no costs were awarded.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
