9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 575 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxSale of plant and machinery and vehicles has been overruled by the respondent on the ground that no documentary evidence is produced - opportunity to produce the documentary evidence - Held that - A perusal of the impugned orders would show that the notices were issued on 5.6.2014 and the petitioner submitted their objections on 16.6.2014. The orders were passed on 7.7.2014 without calling upon the petitioner to produce the documentary evidence. it is settled law as per the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in SRC Projects Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes 2008 (9) TMI 914 - MADRAS HIGH COURT that an opportunity of hearing ought to be granted. - Therefore, one opportunity needs to be given to them to produce proof to show that the sale of the items actually took place in Visakapatnam. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Challenging revised assessment orders for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the revised assessment orders for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. The Enforcement Wing inspected the petitioner's place of business and pointed out five defects. The petitioner accepted four defects but disputed the one related to the sale of plant, machinery, and vehicles, claiming no tax liability in Tamilnadu as the sale occurred in Visakapatnam. The impugned orders demanded tax and penalty on the disputed items, leading to the petitioner approaching the court. The petitioner contended that their objection regarding the sale of certain items was overruled without being given an opportunity to produce documentary evidence. The court noted that the orders were passed without calling for documentary evidence, contrary to the principle established in the case of SRC Projects Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The court emphasized that the petitioner, being a public limited company, should be given an opportunity to present proof regarding the disputed sales location. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the impugned orders. The respondent was directed to schedule a personal hearing for the petitioner to submit documentary evidence regarding the sale of the items in question. After the petitioner presents the proof, the respondent was instructed to pass fresh orders based on merit and in compliance with the law. No costs were awarded, and the related matters were closed.
|
