TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 1156
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....006 (in short 'the 2006 Act'.). 2. W.P.No.38510 of 2015, accordingly, assails the assessment order dated 09.10.2015, while W.P.No.3615 of 2016 lays a challenge to the subsequent order, as noticed above, dated 30.11.2015. 2.1. To be noted, the period in issue pertains to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2012-13. 3. For the purpose of adjudicating upon the captioned Writ Petitions, the following broad facts are required to be noticed. 3.1. The petitioner claims that between April, 2012 and March, 2013, in the course of its business, it executed the works contract for construction of commercial complexes qua entity, set up in the Special Economic Zone (in short SEZ), in the State of Tamil Nadu. 3.2. It appears that the petition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d back on account of the sales return qua which, according to the respondents, relevant documents were not filed. (ii) Input Tax Credit (ITC) claimed at the rate of 14.5% on a turnover of Rs. 6,22,51,713/- was reversed on account of non-declaration of the commodity code. (iii) Sales made to the extent of Rs. 37,47,298/-, on which, rate of tax applied was 5%, was disallowed, as the commodity code was not mentioned, and hence, the said turnover was taxed at a higher rate of 14.5%. (iv) Exemption claimed by the petitioner with respect to the sales made qua dealer located in SEZ were denied on the ground that they were in the nature of works contract and therefore, were liable to be taxed at the rates specified in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order was passed, filed a petition dated 19.11.2015, under Section 84 of the 2006 Act. 6.1. Broadly, in the said rectification petition, the petitioner took the following stand qua each of the issues: 6.2. As far as ITC disallowance of Rs. 59,13,912/- is concerned, the petitioner indicated that other material, in the form of original tax invoices issued by the dealers and ledger extract of the suppliers, were available, to substantiate its claim, notwithstanding the fact that the commodity code had not been mentioned. 6.3. Similarly, with regard to the sales in the sum of Rs. 37,47,298/- being subjected to a higher rate of tax at 14.5%, the details of the sales made with item description along with sample invoices was sought to be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....several errors had been adverted to by the petitioner, including the fact that, the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) had not been accounted for, while arriving at the taxable amount. If, nothing else, this was clearly an error apparent on the face of the record. 7.2. Furthermore, the petitioner claims that, via its monthly returns, for the relevant assessment year, in respect of sale to SEZ Units/developers, no claim had been made under Section 18 of the 2006 Act. If that is so, then, in my view, even, this would be an error apparent on the face of the record. 7.3. In so far as the other issues are concerned, qua which material was sought to be placed on record, respondent No.1, may be, stricto senso, right in holding that these are not i....