TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 1363
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....further direction to the petitioner to pay the entire difference amount of Rs. 23,81,778/- immediately. 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: The petitioner is a public limited company and an assessee on the file of the second respondent. For the assessment year 1984- 85, the petitioner company reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 3,25,08,309.37/- and Rs. 1,42,20,951.46/-. The second respondent/ Assessing Officer through order dated 31.01.2002, determined a total and taxable turnover as Rs. 3,25,08,309/- on the ground that no records were produced. The petitioner filed a statutory appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT). The Appellate Authority by order dated 10.06.2002, applied 50:50 ratio and modified the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....Govi Ganesan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when the petitioner has made the application under the Samadhan Scheme as early as on 13.12.2010 and also paid a sum of Rs. 3,29,085/-, the authorities should have informed the petitioner within 10 days as provided under Rule 3(5) of Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Arrears) Rules, 2011 and called upon the petitioner to pay the difference of tax if any. Thus, he submitted that in the absence of any such communication, the application filed by the petitioner cannot be rejected after a period of nearly 8 years. He further contended that apart from the above said aspect, the impugned order is also liable to be interfered with on the ground of want of jurisdiction on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., as it is evident from the impugned order itself that the said sum was given credit to. There is no dispute to the fact that immediately after filing the said application, the petitioner was not called upon to pay any deficit tax as required under the said rule. 7. On the other hand, the very notice of proposal to reject the petitioner's application itself was issued after nearly 5 years that is on 12.01.2015, that too by the first respondent. It is further seen that thereafter the notice of personal hearing was given by the first respondent, before whom the petitioner appeared and explained. Such being the factual position, the second respondent has chosen to pass the impugned order, which, in my considered view, is not only outside....