TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 123
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nover of Rs. 1,79,24,592.00 and paid the taxes along with the return for that assessment year. 1.2. The petitioner company filed a supplementary return during April 1984 including the turnover of cotton yarn on plain reel for Rs. 2,72,279.00 taxable at 3% and paid tax of Rs. 8,167.00 and it came to be filed during April 1984 for the inadvertent omission to include the above said turnover in the return already filed. 1.3. The petitioner during the very same assessment year, effected transfer of old machinery worth Rs. 3,01,609.00 and a generator worth Rs. 4,54,401.00, totalling a sum of Rs. 7,56,009.91 in favour of it's subsidiary company, namely, Annamalaiar Textiles Pvt. Ltd., and it also bonafidely believed in law that any transfer by the holding company in favour of it's subsidiary company of any capital assets would not be taxable under the provisions of the TNGST Act. Hence, there was no necessity to include the above said transfer in the original return filed for the month of December, 1984 and as per the said return, the company reported a taxable turnover of Rs. 8,13,769.00 and paid a sum of Rs. 20,708.00 on 24.01.1985 and the supplementary return was filed on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eference to transfer of machinery made in favour of it's subsidiary company, but failed to show the said items in the taxable column and paid taxes as taxable turnover of first sales along with the return filed relating to the month of December, 1984 and thereby, treating the same as incorrect and incomplete return for the purpose of levying penalty, the petitioner was called upon to file objections within fifteen days from the date of preassessment notice served on 09.04.1986. The petitioner after obtaining extension of time had filed it's objections during the first week of May, 1986. 1.8. The petitioner filed W.P.No.4593 of 1986 challenging the legality of pre-assessment notice dated 31.03.1986 and an order of interim injunction was granted on 20.05.1986 and it was also communicated to the first respondent on 26.05.1986. However, the first respondent on receipt of the same, has served the assessment order purported to have been made on 15.05.1986 and on 28.05.1986 confirming the proposals as per the pre-assessment notice, dated 31.03.1986 for the assessment year 1984-85. 1.9. The petitioner on receipt of the order dated 15.05.1986, filed a petition in W.P.No.4593 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner that on account of the said reasons, the delay had occurred and it is on account of the genuine and bona fide reasons cited above which are also beyond his control and therefore, prayed for quashment of the order of the second respondent dated 28.02.2003 made in M.T.A.No.34 of 2002. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that admittedly, the order of assessment dated 15.05.1986 was not at all served and after obtaining the certified copy of the assessment order, the appeal was presented and the reasons for the delay have also been explained and despite that, without due and proper application of mind, it was rejected on the ground that it was not filed along with the original order and the huge delay of 4709 days cannot be condoned by the first appellate authority under Section 31(1) of the TNGST Act. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment reported in 2009 VST 581 and would submit that as per the said judgment, from the date of repeal of 1992 Act, this Court will have the jurisdiction to entertain under Sections 37 and 38 of the TNGST Act as the provisions re-merge prior to 1992 Act and in the light of the same coupled w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessment order dated 15.05.1986 and therefore, it ought to have been brought to the knowledge of the Special Tribunal, but it was not done so either by the petitioner or by the Revenue. 10. The petitioner after the receipt of the said order, at least, ought to have approached the Tribunal either for modification or review, if it is permissible, but it has failed to do so. 11. According to the petitioner, since the Special Tribunal, vide order dated 03.07.1997, had granted time till 30.11.1997 to file objections, it was waiting for communication from the first respondent. In the considered opinion of this Court, in compliance of the order of the Tribunal, it ought to have submitted the objections and the reason cited that it waited for the communication from the first respondent calling upon him to submit objections, is wholly untenable. 12. The petitioner obtained the certified copy of the assessment order dated 15.05.1986 only on 16.04.1999 and it was returned and thereafter, after getting the attested/signed by the Assessment Officer, represented the appeal papers on 13.05.1999 with a delay of nearly 13 years. 13. It is the specific stand of the first respondent in th....