2016 (12) TMI 127

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r disposal at the admission stage. 2. The petitioner is a Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act. The petitioner company has its Registered Office at Kolkata, West Bengal State and it has Branch Offices at Chennai and Tuticorin, holding TIN No.33931089278. The petitioner company also has its Branch at Bangalore. The business of the petitioner company consists of import of plastic granules and effect stock transfer and inster-state sales of the same. Accordingly, in respect of the assessment year CST/2014-15, the petitioner reported their turnover as under:- Sl.No. Head Turnover declared for annually (Rs.) 1 Consignment Sale 126,22,52,675/- 2 Stock Transfer 8,57,12,061/- 3 Interstate Sales ag....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....knowledged by the first respondent. On 2.5.2016, there was an order with reference to the Notice dated 14.3.2016. This order confirmed demand on the value of Rs. 2,51,72,790/- as not covered by 'C' Forms. In reply, on 22.6.2016, the petitioner company filed an application stating that C Form declarations had already been submitted for the value of Rs. 2,51,72,790/-. Thereafter, the first respondent has passed the impugned order dated 13.7.2016. This refers to the order dated 7.1.2016 and representation dated 21.1.2016 and rectified order dated 7.1.2016. The impugned order dated 13.7.2016, thereafter, levies a tax on the high sea sales turnover of Rs. 7,18,29,120/-. For the demand of this turnover, there is no notice. Thereafter, the petitio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e first respondent has contended that though opportunity has already been afforded, yet they will offer an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and proceed in accordance with law. However, attachment made in the bank account cannot be raised now, for which, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not seriously objected to it. 6. In SRC Projects Pvt.Ltd., vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai and another reported in [2010] 33 VST 333 (Mad), relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Division Bench of this Court has held that - 22. This Court, therefore, holds that the provision of section 16(1)(a) of the said Act has to be construed in accordance with the said circular which is by way of cont....