9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 839X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On the other hand, the second respondent had levied a uniform of rate of tax at 14.5% - Held that:- It is not in dispute that there has been an omission on the part of the petitioner to disclose the purchase made by them. It is also not in dispute that the second respondent is posted with all the purchase details. When the second respondent is having the relevant invoices and is also aware or the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M.P.(MD)No.13950 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 30-1-2019 - Mr. Justice G.R. Swaminathan For the Petitioners : Mr.Radhika Chandra Sekhar For the Respondent : Mr.Aayiram K. Selvakumar Additional Government Pleader ORDER The petitioner is an assessee registered with the second respondent. The subject matter pertains to the assessment year 2013-2014. The second respondent came to know tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m Circle, Moolathaoppu, Srirangam is present in person and assisted this Court. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner conceded that while filing the returns for the assessment year in question in Annexure-1, the petitioner omitted to disclose certain purchases made by them. He would further submit that the omission is inadvertent and not willfully or deliberately made. But her ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have levied only at the applicable rate of taxes. But in this case, the second respondent has chosen to levy tax at an uniform rate of 14.5%. This in my view is clearly unreasonable and vitiates the proceedings. 6.But then, this Court cannot fail to take note of the petitioner's conduct. When a question was posed as to whether the petitioner had remitted atleast the demanded tax as per thei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
