Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2012 (1) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2012 (1) TMI 193 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues involved: Lack of pre-revision notice, authority of respondent to pass impugned order, limitation prescribed under Section 55 of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.

Impugned Order without Pre-Revision Notice:
The petitioner's counsel argued that the impugned order dated 03.09.2009 was passed without issuing a pre-revision notice to the petitioner. It was contended that the respondent lacked the authority to revise the earlier assessment order made on 23.09.2004 for the assessment year 2003-2004, as it exceeded the limitation prescribed under Section 55 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.

Admission by Respondent's Counsel:
In response, the respondent's counsel admitted that the impugned order of 03.09.2009 was indeed issued without a proper notice to the petitioner as required under Section 55 of the Act. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside. The respondent was directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act to revise the assessment order dated 23.09.2004 for the assessment year 2003-2004. The petitioner was instructed to raise all available grounds, including the limitation aspect, in its objections upon receiving the fresh notice.

Court's Decision:
The court ordered the writ petition in favor of the petitioner, directing that no costs be imposed. Additionally, the connected M.P.No.1 of 2012 was closed as a result of the judgment. The respondent was instructed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner for revising the assessment order, and upon receiving objections from the petitioner, the respondent was required to consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law and the objections raised by the petitioner.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates