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 Challenge Dismissed: Petitioner Must Deposit 10% and Respond Within Strict Timelines or Risk Case Closure</h1> <h3>Sri Saravana Enterprises Versus The State Tax Officer (Inspection-III), The State Tax Officer (Inspection-IV), The Joint Commissioner (ST) (Intelligence), The Assistant Commissioner (ST) -I, The Principal Secretary/The Commissioner of State Tax, Chennai</h3> HC dismissed petitioner's challenge to tax assessment orders, finding significant procedural negligence. The court granted a conditional opportunity for ... Challenge to Assessment Orders passed by the second respondent - challenge to Circular No.13/2022 – TNGST dated 08.11.2022 and Circular No.11/2023 dated 27.05.2023 - jurisdiction to pass impugned order - the order has been passed by an Officer different from the Officer, who investigated the case - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has been negligent in not participating in the proceedings, which emanated from the notices issued by the second respondent in DRC – 01 for the respective Assessment Years. There is no excuse for the petitioner to have ignored the notices and now, present a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.17818 of 2024 as a fait accompli stating that the Circulars are void and contrary to the provisions of the Act. Since the petitioner has not filed reply, one opportunity is being given to the petitioner subject to the petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed tax to the credit of the respondent Department from its Electronic Cash Register within a period of eight weeks from today. The impugned order which stands quashed for the respective Assessment Years shall be treated as Addendum to the respective notices in DRC – 01. The petitioner shall file a separate reply for each of the Assessment Years within a period of 12 weeks from today. The fourth respondent shall pass final orders on merits within a period of two months thereafter - Petition disposed off. Issues:Challenging Assessment Orders for multiple years, validity of Circulars, failure to respond to notices, jurisdiction of officers, negligence of petitioner, challenge to Circular, opportunity for petitioner to respond, depositing disputed tax, timeline for filing replies, cooperation with authorities.Challenging Assessment Orders:The petitioner challenged Assessment Orders for multiple years, contending that the initiation of proceedings and adjudication were void as they were contrary to the GST Enactments. The petitioner failed to respond to notices issued for the Assessment Years, leading to the impugned orders. The court noted the negligence of the petitioner in not participating in the proceedings and dismissed the challenge to the Circulars, stating that there was no embargo on inspection and recording of statements by the second respondent.Jurisdiction and Negligence:The Special Government Pleader argued that the issue was covered against the petitioner based on a previous court decision. It was highlighted that the order was passed by an officer different from the one who investigated the case, emphasizing the petitioner's failure to participate in the adjudication mechanism. The court found the petitioner negligent for ignoring the notices and presenting the Writ Petition as a last resort.Opportunity for Petitioner:The court granted the petitioner an opportunity to respond by depositing 10% of the disputed tax within eight weeks and filing separate replies for each Assessment Year within 12 weeks. The final orders were to be passed by the fourth respondent within two months thereafter, with a clear directive for the petitioner to cooperate with the authorities. Failure to comply would result in the dismissal of the Writ Petitions, allowing the authorities to proceed against the petitioner.Conclusion:The Writ Petitions were disposed of with directions for the petitioner to follow the specified timeline and cooperate with the authorities. No costs were awarded, and connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed. The judgment aimed to provide the petitioner with a chance to respond and rectify the negligence displayed, ensuring compliance with the legal procedures and timelines set by the court.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
