9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 613X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the second respondent dated March 28, 2007 and for a direction to entertain the appeal. The petitioner who is a dealer in PVC pipes, tubes and fittings declared a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 6,91,48,764 and 6,66,06,326, respectively, in the monthly returns submitted in form A-1 for the assessment year 2004-05. The first respondent passed an order of assessment on June 12, 2006 levied t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... returned by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner VI, Chennai directing the petitioner to resubmit the appeal papers along with the 25 per cent of the disputed amount as a pre-condition. As per the revised assessment order, the tax due on the disputed turnover is Rs. 9,38,400 and the penalty levied against the petitioner is 9,34,102. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner represente ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her the appeal presented by the petitioner is barred by limitation or not, learned Additional Government Pleader was put on notice and heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated June 12, 2006 has subsequently been modified as per the request made by the petitioner and as per the revised order dated August 21, 2006, the tax element and the penalty component was re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in existence and computing the period of limitation for payment of pre-deposit from that order is not correct. Under such circumstances, the reasoning of the appellate authority refusing to entertain the appeal on the grounds alleged, i.e., barred by limitation is erroneous. As the appeal filed by the petitioner on September 25, 2006 is well within the statutory period provided under section 31 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
