Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 1040 Records
-
2011 (1) TMI 1307
Issues: Land acquisition proceedings, refund of charges
Land Acquisition Proceedings: The Supreme Court heard the counsel for the parties regarding the acquisition of 241 kanals of land, where most of the acquisition was quashed except for 35 kanals. The applicant argued that the judgment should only apply to those who challenged the acquisition in court, not to those who did not. Despite the legal position, the Court noted that only a small portion of land remained with the applicant, and thus, no clarification was deemed necessary. However, the applicant's counsel highlighted that the State Government had retained a significant sum while refunding the applicant, citing acquisition and departmental charges along with super structure charges. The Court found these deductions unjustified, considering the faulty notification issued by the State Government, which was quashed by the Court. Consequently, the Court ordered the refund of the deducted amounts, totaling &8377; 44,85,179/- and &8377; 11,00,000/-, to the applicant.
Refund of Charges: In response to the applicant's plea, the Court held that the State Government's retention of amounts representing acquisition and departmental charges, along with super structure charges, was unwarranted. The Court emphasized that the applicant bore no responsibility for the faulty notification issued by the State Government, which led to the quashing of the acquisition proceedings. Therefore, the Court directed the State Government to refund the amounts of &8377; 44,85,179/- and &8377; 11,00,000/- to the applicant. The applications filed by the applicant were disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs being issued.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1305
Issues Involved: 1. Rejection of revised return. 2. Exchange rate fluctuation/difference as part of total turnover for deduction u/s 80HHC. 3. Sales of scrap as part of total turnover for deduction u/s 80HHC. 4. Reduction of unrealized export turnover for computing deduction u/s 80HHC. 5. Deduction u/s 80HHC for computation of book profits under sec. 115JA. 6. Deduction u/s 80IA for computation of book profits under sec. 115JA. 7. Allocation of expenses to Silvassa unit for deduction u/s 80IA. 8. Disallowance of revenue expenses as pre-operative expenses. 9. Disallowance of depreciation u/s 32. 10. Weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) for R&D expenses. 11. Exclusion of insurance claim from total turnover for deduction u/s 80HHC. 12. Exclusion of sales tax and excise duty from total turnover for deduction u/s 80HHC. 13. Exclusion of net interest income from profits of business for deduction u/s 80HHC. 14. Exclusion of net lease rent from profits of business for deduction u/s 80HHC. 15. Treatment of operational charges for computing deduction u/s 80HHC. 16. Bifurcation of overseas promotional expenses for computing export trading profits for deduction u/s 80HHC.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Rejection of Revised Return: The assessee's revised returns were filed within the stipulated time under section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] concluded that there was no adverse impact on the assessee as the computation of income was based on the second revised return. The issue was deemed academic and dismissed.
2. Exchange Rate Fluctuation/Difference: The CIT(A) upheld the inclusion of exchange rate fluctuation in the total turnover for computing deduction u/s 80HHC. However, the Tribunal found that such receipts do not have an element of turnover and should not form part of total turnover. The appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee.
3. Sales of Scrap: The CIT(A) treated sales of scrap as part of total turnover for computing deduction u/s 80HHC. The Tribunal disagreed, stating that scrap sales do not have an element of turnover and should not be included in the total turnover. The appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee.
4. Reduction of Unrealized Export Turnover: The assessee did not press this ground. Accordingly, it was dismissed.
5. Deduction u/s 80HHC for Book Profits: The CIT(A) upheld the computation based on taxable profits. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow deduction u/s 80HHC based on adjusted book profits, following the Supreme Court decision in Ajanta Pharma Ltd. The appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee.
6. Deduction u/s 80IA for Book Profits: The CIT(A) did not adjudicate this ground. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue after allowing sufficient opportunity to both parties.
7. Allocation of Expenses to Silvassa Unit: The CIT(A) did not decide this ground. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue after allowing sufficient opportunity to both parties.
8. Disallowance of Revenue Expenses: The CIT(A) upheld the AO's disallowance of expenses as pre-operative. The Tribunal found that complete facts were not evident and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
9. Disallowance of Depreciation: The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's claim that depreciation cannot be thrust upon them. The Tribunal vacated the CIT(A)'s findings and directed the AO to allow depreciation and compute deductions u/s 80IA accordingly. The appeal was allowed in favor of the Revenue.
10. Weighted Deduction u/s 35(2AB): The CIT(A) allowed the deduction based on the prescribed authority's approval. The Tribunal upheld this decision, finding no reason to interfere. The appeal was dismissed.
11. Exclusion of Insurance Claim: The CIT(A) directed the exclusion of insurance claims from total turnover. The Tribunal upheld this decision, finding no reason to interfere. The appeal was dismissed.
12. Exclusion of Sales Tax and Excise Duty: The CIT(A) directed the exclusion of sales tax and excise duty from total turnover. The Tribunal upheld this decision based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Lakshmi Machine Works. The appeal was dismissed.
13. Exclusion of Net Interest Income: The CIT(A) directed to exclude 90% of net interest income. The Tribunal vacated the CIT(A)'s findings and remanded the issue for fresh adjudication in light of judicial pronouncements. The appeal was disposed of with directions.
14. Exclusion of Net Lease Rent: The CIT(A) directed to exclude 90% of net lease rent. The Tribunal vacated the CIT(A)'s findings and remanded the issue for fresh adjudication. The appeal was disposed of with directions.
15. Treatment of Operational Charges: The CIT(A) held that the entire operational charges were business income. The Tribunal vacated the CIT(A)'s findings and remanded the issue for fresh adjudication. The appeal was disposed of with directions.
16. Bifurcation of Overseas Promotional Expenses: The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's bifurcation of expenses. The Tribunal upheld this decision, finding no reason to interfere. The appeal was dismissed.
Conclusion: Both appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes, with directions for fresh adjudication on certain issues.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1304
Issues involved: Appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding shortage of grey yarn, duty payment, penalty imposition, and option for reduced penalty u/s 11AC.
Shortage of grey yarn and duty payment: The officers found a stock shortage of grey yarn during a visit to the factory premises. The partner admitted the shortage and clarified that the goods were cleared after dying to customers without payment of duty. Duty amount was paid subsequently. The original authority confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty, which was upheld by the Commissioner on appeal.
Contentions and arguments: The appellant claimed that the stock taking was defective as it did not account for materials issued for processing. The appellant argued that the demand was based on assumption and presumption, and the partner's statement was taken under pressure. The appellant cited Tribunal decisions to support their case.
Clandestine removal: The Respondent reiterated that the case involved clear and admitted clandestine removal of goods.
Option for reduced penalty: The appellant sought an option to pay reduced penalty u/s 11AC, citing a decision of the Delhi High Court. The Tribunal considered the submissions and records, noting the partner's admission of clearance without duty payment and the lack of retraction of the statement. The Tribunal found the appellant's claim of shortage due to unaccounted processing materials to be an afterthought and rejected the appeal.
Decision: The appeal was rejected, but the appellant was granted an option to pay a reduced penalty of &8377; 69,783.75 within 30 days. Failure to pay within the specified time would result in a penalty of &8377; 2,79,135.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1303
Duty demand as well as the penalties imposed set aside by Tribunal - Held that:- The endorsement of transferability had been made by the licensing authority. It is not the case of the licensing authority that the endorsement was fraudulently obtained, nor has the licensing authority taken any steps to cancel the said licence. In the circumstances, the Customs authorities could not have refused to grant the benefit under the said licence. The Tribunal was therefore, justified in setting aside the duty demand.
In the light of the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal, it is apparent that the provisions of Section 112(a) of the Act could not have been invoked against and M/s. Kuppi Utpadan and, Shri Balkishan Devidayal. As regards penalty imposed on M/s. ACT Shipping, the Tribunal has found that the goods were cleared on the basis of documents filed after due verification by the proper customs authority, in the circumstances the Tribunal was justified in holding that penalty cannot be levied under Section 112(a) of the Act on M/s. ACT Shipping who was an agent, when the liability to confiscation of goods has not been upheld. For the foregoing reasons, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has committed any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference. No question of law, much less, a substantial question of law can be stated to arise out of the impugned order of the Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1302
Demand - Clandestine removal - excess production of MS ingots - No experiment have been conducted in the factories of the appellants for devising the consumption norms of electricity for producing on MT of steel ingots - Tribunal also observed that the electricity consumption varies from one heat to another and from one date to another and even from one heat to another within the same date.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1301
Issues: Petition to quash reassessment order imposing VAT on transportation charges for food supply; Interpretation of VAT Act regarding transportation charges as part of sale consideration; Applicability of service tax on transportation; Disputed question of law and fact between VAT Act and Service Tax Act.
Analysis: The petitioner, a caterer supplying food items through an airport catering company, challenged a reassessment order imposing VAT on transportation charges for food supply. The petitioner argued that transportation charges should be exempt from sales tax as they are incidental to the sale of goods. The Government Pleader, citing VAT Act definitions and a court decision, contended that transportation charges are part of the sale consideration if paid before delivery. On the other hand, the Commissioner of Service Tax argued that transportation is an outdoor service liable for service tax, referencing a Supreme Court decision. The petitioner's counsel countered by citing another Supreme Court decision, asserting transportation should be treated as an independent sale of goods not subject to service tax.
In light of conflicting interpretations and the involvement of disputed questions of law and fact, the court advised the petitioner to approach the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal for resolution. The court acknowledged the complexity of the legal issues involved and the potential challenge in obtaining a different view from the Department's representative. The court emphasized the need for expeditious resolution and directed the petitioner to pursue the matter at the appellate level, leaving all contentions open for further argument.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1300
Refund demanded of the sum of ₹ 4,62,528 already deducted by the railway and for a relief restraining the railway from deducting any amount from the amounts payable for the goods supplied by the company
Held that:- According to the railway, the company failed to inform the railway in respect of the payment of Central sales tax on the materials in question and that the railway having deposited the amount deducted with the treasury of the State, it is the State Government which shall be directed to refund the amount.
Whether the company produced the relevant materials before the railway at the relevant time is a disputed question of fact which cannot be resolved in this petition under article 226 of the Constitution. However, before us it is not disputed that the company did pay Central sales tax and that it was not liable to pay the value added tax to the State of Bihar. Allow this petition. We direct the respondent-East Central Railway to refund the amount of tax recovered by it from the company for the supply of goods on which the company had paid Central sales tax
-
2011 (1) TMI 1299
Issues: Challenge to circular issued by Commissioner of Commercial Taxes regarding levy of entry tax on motor vehicles including excavators under the Entry Tax Act.
Analysis: The petitioner, engaged in stone crushing business, purchased an excavator and received a show-cause notice proposing tax levy under the Entry Tax Act. The petitioner challenged a circular instructing levy of entry tax on motor vehicles, including excavators, issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The petitioner contended that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to issue such instructions to quasi-judicial authorities. The petitioner also argued that the excavator did not fall under the definition of "motor vehicle" as per the Motor Vehicles Act.
The Commissioner justified the circular as administrative, issued to inform subordinate authorities about the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The High Court analyzed the powers of the Commissioner in issuing instructions regarding tax levy. It noted that while the Commissioner can bring legal decisions to the notice of officials, he cannot issue binding instructions to assessing officers exercising quasi-judicial functions. Assessing officers must consider objections and circumstances of each case before levying tax on vehicles. The High Court held that the portion of the circular instructing officers to levy and collect entry tax was without jurisdiction and unenforceable.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition, declaring the relevant portion of the circular as without jurisdiction. It directed the second respondent to follow the prescribed legal procedure and consider the petitioner's case on its merits. The judgment clarified that it did not exempt all excavators from tax under the Entry Tax Act, emphasizing the need for individual assessment based on specific circumstances. The petitioner's challenge to the circular was partially successful, leading to a directive for a fair consideration of their case without imposing costs.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1298
If the revisional authority was of the view that the order passed by the Advance Ruling Authority is erroneous, they could correct the same and say what the correct law is?
Held that:- It is not as if when an order is passed by the Advance Ruling Authority, he should positively state whether the Advance Ruling Authority was wrong and what is the correct law. That is normally the procedure. In a case of this nature, when the reference to the Advance Ruling Authority itself is too vague and when it is answered in too general terms, as the question of construction work is purely a question of fact, as different materials are used in construction and thereafter they are transferred, the revision authority was justified in leaving that question to be decided by the assessing officer keeping in mind law on the point. The Advance Ruling Authority was not justified in giving their opinion in too general terms and was capable of being misinterpreted. Certainly, the opinion given by the Advance Ruling Authority is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and it is also not in accordance with law.
No justification to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Commissioner. Appeal dismissed.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1297
Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that 'grease gun' supplied by the petitioner will not fall under entry 79(i) of Part B of the First Schedule to the TNGST Act, but falls under the residuary entry?
Held that:- The "grease gun" is a tool/implement as described in Sl. No. 79(i) of Part B of the First Schedule to the TNGST Act and consequentially, the rate of tax applicable is only four per cent as held by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in its order dated March 6, 2000. The order of the Tribunal is, therefore, set aside. The question of law raised is accordingly answered in favour of the petitioner. The revisions are allowed.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1296
Demand notice seeked t be quashed - Held that:- We are of the considered opinion that for dispute between the two Departments, the petitioner cannot suffer. In view of the admitted fact that the Excise Commissioner admits the liability to pay sales tax due, we do not consider it expedient to remit the matter to the State Government. As such, we quash the impugned demand notice dated January 14, 1993 contained in annexure 8 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Bhagalpur. It would be open for the Commercial Tax Department to recover the same from the Excise Department.
We accordingly award cost of ₹ 20,000 on the Excise Department which would be payable to the petitioner within a period of three months from today.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1295
Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the sale of bus bodies by the respondent to the exporter of passenger buses qualifies for exemption under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956?
Held that:- In the present case, it has been specifically held by the Assessing Authority as well as by the Tribunal that the assessee had produced the relevant information in prescribed form in support of its claim. Once transaction between the assessee and the exporter was integrated to the export, section 5(3) was rightly held to be attracted following the view taken by the Karnataka High Court. The view taken by the Karnataka High Court, relied upon by the Tribunal stands affirmed by the honourable Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Azad Coach Builders Pvt. Ltd. [2010 (9) TMI 879 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. No question of law arises which may require adjudication by this court. Appeal dismissed.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1294
Issues: Jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax under section 22A(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957
The judgment involves a challenge by the assessee against an order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax in his revisional jurisdiction under section 22A(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. The assessee, engaged in civil works contracts and construction of apartments, filed annual returns for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. Ex parte assessment orders were passed for both years due to the assessee's failure to produce books of account, leading to penalty imposition. Appeals were made to the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, who partially allowed them, prompting the assessee to appeal to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. During the appeal's pendency, the Additional Commissioner, in a revisional capacity, reviewed the appellate authority's decision and set it aside, directing a reassessment. The appellant challenged this revisional order, arguing lack of jurisdiction due to the pending appeal before the Tribunal.
The appellant contended that once a statutory second appeal is made to the Tribunal on the same subject matter, the Additional Commissioner lacks jurisdiction to revise the order under section 22A(1) of the Act. However, the court clarified that revisional jurisdiction can be exercised on matters not subject to appeal, even if an appeal is pending. In this case, the subject matter of the appeal before the Tribunal differed from the subject matter of the revision, which favored the assessee. Therefore, the court found no merit in the jurisdictional challenge.
Additionally, the appellant argued that the revisional direction conflicted with the assessee's rights. The court explained that if the appellant succeeds in the appeal, the appellate authority's direction prevails; otherwise, the assessing authority must consider the case lawfully. Even if remanded, the assessing authority must evaluate claims appropriately. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, finding no substance in the arguments presented by the appellant.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1293
Whether the phrase "all kinds of bricks" occurring in entry 2 of the Third Schedule to the Act be declared as exhaustive n so far as the petitioners are concerned?
Whether the clarification No. CLR CR.91/2006-2007 dated September 8, 2006 at annexure A issued by the second respondent be quashed?
Whether reassessment orders at annexures C and D for the assessment periods 2007-08 and 2008-09 bequashed?
Held that:- It is a fit case wherein the impugned orders of the assessment officer passed at annexures C, D and G, respectively, directing the petitioners to pay 12.5 per cent of VATexercising the power under section 4(l)(b) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, could be quashed and they are accordingly quashed. It is made clear that the clarification issued in the circumstances, by the Commissioner at annexure A would not be made applicable to the tiles which are in the form of paving bricks and are held to be covered under the exhaustive definition of "all kinds of bricks/ asphalt tiles". It is directed to collect the tax for the said assessment years only at four per cent as provided under entry 2 of the Third Schedule to the KVAT Act. Appeal allowed.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1292
Whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the respondent-hotel, which got classification as a three star hotel with effect from September 11, 2002, is not liable to pay tax on cooked food and beverages sold in the hotel at eight per cent under entry 46 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 for any period prior to the date of granting star classification?
Held that:- Star hotels referred to in entry 46 only mean hotels classified to be a star hotel by the approval and classification committee con stituted by the Government of India. Admittedly, the respondent could not have collected tax at eight per cent for any sale of cooked food or beverages prior to September 11, 2002. In fact, if tax was collected under entry 46 for any period prior to September 11, 2002 then the respondent would have been liable for penal action. So much so, we feel that the star classification referred to in entry 46 is the star classification provided by the Tourism Department for recognition and approval of star hotels.
Liability for tax on cooked food which is generally served in hotels is fixed under the statute with reference to the classification of hotels. In fact, only bar attached hotels and star hotels are specifically covered by entry 46. However other hotels engaged in sale of cooked food or beverages are covered by section 5B, which provides for collection of licence fee. In view of the provisions as above, we feel the respondent is liable for payment of tax at eight per cent under entry 46 from September 11, 2002 onwards, when the approval by the classification committee is made effective. For the periods until then, the responden
-
2011 (1) TMI 1291
Issues: 1. Imposition of penalty under section 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005. 2. Consideration of genuine documents in imposing penalties. 3. Legality and sustainability of impugned orders.
Analysis:
1. Imposition of Penalty under Section 68: The appellant filed an appeal under section 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005, challenging the penalty imposed by the Value Added Tax Tribunal. The Tribunal had imposed a penalty of &8377;1,39,500 under section 51(7)(b) of the Act, alleging an attempt to evade tax. The authorities concluded that the goods carried by the appellant were not covered by proper and genuine documents as required under section 51(2) of the Act. The Tribunal upheld the penalty, stating that there was an attempt to evade tax, leading to the imposition of the penalty. The High Court found no illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings of fact by the authorities, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
2. Consideration of Genuine Documents: The crux of the matter revolved around whether the goods vehicle intercepted by the Excise and Taxation Department was carrying genuine documents as mandated by section 51(2) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the driver only had a delivery challan without essential details such as a number, proper recipient name, or destination. The absence of a goods receipt with the driver raised concerns about the authenticity of the transaction. The Tribunal concluded that the goods were intended for trade and lacked proper documentation, indicating an attempt to evade tax. This lack of genuine documents led to the imposition of the penalty under section 51(7)(b) of the Act.
3. Legality and Sustainability of Impugned Orders: The appellant raised substantial questions of law regarding the legality and sustainability of the penalties imposed without considering the genuineness of the transaction. However, the High Court upheld the decisions of the lower authorities, emphasizing that no legal errors were found in their conclusions. The High Court affirmed that the penalty was justified under section 51(7)(b) of the Act due to the absence of proper and genuine documents as required by law. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, highlighting the importance of complying with statutory documentation requirements to avoid penalties under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1290
Maintainability of the writ petition
Held that:- It is rather difficult to accept the submission of the counsel that the petitioner's representation does not bar the writ petition. Though it was not presented in the proper form, it would certainly amount to the petitioner availing of the remedy under the VATAct. Further the second respondent himself treated the representation as an appeal, and returned the same requiring rectification of the mistakes. On this ground, the writ petition is not maintainable.
The transit pass produced before us contains 10 columns only, and the signature of the CTO concerned and the certification by the officer in-charge of the exit check-post are absent. Therefore, we are not inclined to attach any importance to the transit pass produced along with the reply affidavit. We hasten to add that these are questions which have to be agitated before the appellate authority, and the writ petition is not a proper remedy. Appeal dismissed.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1289
Whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in proceeding on the footing that in order to discharge the burden of proof contemplated under section 10 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 the proof of existence of registered dealers from whom the assessee purported to have purchased goods is sufficient, ignoring that for claiming second sales exemption the assessee has to prove earlier taxable sale?
Whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal has not committed an error in not insisting upon proof of actual transaction of sale for claiming second sale exemption?
Held that:- On careful consideration of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the Tribunal, we are convinced that such a conclusion arrived at by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as affirmed by the Tribunal was based on relevant facts and materials and there is no reason to take a different view than what has been stated by the said authorities. We, therefore, do not find any scope to interfere with the order impugned in this revision petition. The questions of law raised in this revision are, therefore, answered against the petitioner. The tax case revision fails
-
2011 (1) TMI 1288
Order passed by the revisional authority under section 22A(ii) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, forfeiting the sales tax paid by the assessee to the Government and rejecting his request for refund of the wrongly collected amount challenged
Held that:- The Commissioner secured the sales bills and sales particulars of other dealers who are dealing with the very same products before acting on the said documents. He issued one more notice to the assessee bringing to her notice the aforesaid material and calling upon her to show cause as to why the said material should not be taken into consideration. The said material compared with the returns filed by the assessee clearly demonstrate that the amount collected by the assessee is more than what they had collected inclusive of tax and therefore he was of the view that though in the sales bill and account book this tax component is not mentioned the amount which is received as sales consideration was inclusive of tax component. From the aforesaid material we are satisfied that the finding recorded by the Commissioner is based on legal evidence, in accordance with law and do not call for any interference.
The right of appeal has to be worked out within the four corners of law. When the law provides for a statutory appeal against the order of the Commissioner it is not open to the assessee to contend that he should have a right of first appeal, second appeal or revision as provided against the assessment order and therefore we do not see any merit in the said contention. Appeal dismissed.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1287
Whether the order passed by the first respondent in Ref. M2/53216/96 SMR. No. 628/97 dated October 21, 2004 is a non est and unsustainable one in the eye of law?
Held that:- The show-cause notice has been issued in the present case to the petitioner on November 18, 1997. Even though the order has been passed on October 21, 2004 by the first respondent, yet the first respondent has commenced the proceedings to revise the assessment and issued the show-cause notice dated November 18, 1997 within five years from the date of the order of the second respondent dated May 30, 1996 and therefore, there is no violation as per section 34(2)(c) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and in this regard, the contra plea taken by the petitioner is negatived by this court. Appeal dismissed.
............
|