2020 (7) TMI 584

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ection to the respondent No.1 to allow the amendment sought by the petitioner in its return of second quarter for the financial year 2015-16 vide application dated 16th June, 2019 and to quash the notice dated 24th June, 2020 issued by a private party-respondent No.2 in pursuance to another notice dated 16th June, 2020 issued to it by respondent No.3 for recovery of alleged tax of Rs. 29,79,163/-. 3. Mr. Puneet Bhatnagar, learned counsel for petitioner states that return of three unsold paintings by petitioner's Consignment Agent (respondent No.2) were inadvertently shown as Inter-State Purchase without Form in Form-16 in the second Quarter of financial year 2015-16 instead of being shown as Stock Transfer Inward against F-Form. He further....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ioner submits that while respondent No.1 is neither allowing nor rejecting the petitioner's amendment application, respondent No.2 has raised demand for payment of tax along with interest and penalty vide its notice dated 24th June, 2020 on the basis of notice dated 16th June, 2020 issued to it by respondent No.3. He contends that if the petitioner's application dated 16th June, 2019 for amendment is allowed, the demands raised under notices dated 24th June, 2020 and 16th June, 2020 would become infructuous. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Satyakam, learned Additional Standing counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that the decision of this Court in M/s. Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner DT&T & Anr., W.P. (C) No. 8272/2015 is under chal....