9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 548X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on hand. The impugned order passed by the respondent is set aside and the same is remitted back to the file of the respondent - petition allowed by way of remand. - W.P(MD)No.13708 of 2010 And M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 16-8-2018 - Mrs. J. Nisha Banu J. For the Petitioner : Mr.A.Chandrasekaran For the Respondents : Mr.D.Muruganandham, Additional Government Pleader ORDER This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order in TNGST : 5960250/03-04, dated 30.09.2010. 2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner are as follows: (a) The petitioner is a printer engaged in the business of execution of printing contracts. The works contract are being done by the petitioner with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for payment of tax at compounding rate, the printing coolie receipts of ₹ 51,81,652/- also has to be subjected to tax. The petitioner has submitted his reply on 04.12.2006 stating that as per the clarification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, in Lr.No.K.Dis.Acts Cell-I/36669/2002, dated 17.07.2002 and in Lr.No.K.Dis.Acts Cell-I/39426/2004, dated 10.08.2004, the printing coolie cannot be included in the total turnover. Nearly after four years, the petitioner has received another notice, dated 14.05.2010. But, in the said notice, the reply given by the petitioner has not been mentioned. Therefore, the petitioner has again submitted his objections on 24.06.2010. Without considering the reply given by the petitioner an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2005 (M/s.Lakshmi Saw Mill Vs. The Commercial Tax Officer, Tiruchirapalli), dated 27.04.2005 , has held as follows: ..... A perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioner's objections were considered and overruled. Except the above, there is nothing to indicate whether in fact the said objections were considered or not. In the absence of any reasons for rejecting the objections in the impugned order, the effective statuary right of appeal would be defeated as the petitioner cannot have any ground to question the order before the appellate authority. The same issue came up for consideration before this Court in W.P.No.17201 of 2001 and by order dated 20.09.2001 for the very same reason the order of assessment impugned there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
