9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 469 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxValidity of assessment order - Held that - the first respondent need not have laboured much to decide the controversy in issue as the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Oberoi Associated Hotels Limited vs. Commercial Tax Officer and others 1994 (3) TMI 358 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , where the orders of assessment quashed and the matter remanded for fresh consideration - the assessment orders have to be necessarily set aside and the matter has to be remanded to the Assessing Officer, who has to take a decision in terms of the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court - petition allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
Challenge to order dated 15.07.2002 in T.A.Nos.640 to 643 of 1995. Analysis: The petitioner contested an order dated 15.07.2002 by the first respondent in T.A.Nos.640 to 643 of 1995. The court referred to a previous case involving similar dealers where the Division Bench partially allowed the writ petitions, quashing the assessment orders and remanding the matter for fresh consideration. The court highlighted the legal validity of section 6 of the Constitution (Forty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1982, saving and expanding the scope of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. It outlined specific periods for the application of entry No. 150 of the First Schedule for levying sales tax and emphasized the importance of assessing the liability of assessees under relevant provisions. The judgment clarified the applicability of entry No. 150 to transactions based on the place of sale/supply of food and drinks, not the proprietor managing the establishment. It also addressed the eligibility of assessees for exemption under section 6(2) of the Constitution (Forty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1982, during tax assessment. The court directed that assessment orders be set aside and remanded to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration based on the Division Bench's directives. Consequently, the writ petitions were allowed, the impugned order and assessment orders were annulled, and the matter was sent back to the second respondent for reassessment. The court emphasized the need for the Assessing Officer to follow the Division Bench's directions while revising the assessment orders and providing the petitioner with adequate opportunity for representation. No costs were awarded in this judgment.
|
