9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1549X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no matter has been considered and decided on merits. That being the position, the prescribed Authority rejecting the rectification applications on the ground of dismissal of the appeals cannot be sustained. The books of accounts not being produced by the petitioner allegedly for non service of notices, would have a direct bearing in determining the tax liability. The prescribed Authority ought to have examined whether the request made by the petitioner would be amenable to rectification under Section 69 of the Act. Hence, this court is of the considered opinion that the interest of justice would be sub-served in setting aside the endorsements Annexures M, N and P to the writ petitions and restoring the proceedings to the file of the resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were never served upon the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, respondent No.1 has arbitrarily concluded re-assessment orders exparte determining huge amounts of tax, interest and penalty as payable by the petitioner. The said re-assessment orders were followed by demand notices. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had preferred appeals and the same came to be dismissed as withdrawn. Subsequently, petitioner filed applications seeking rectification of the re-assessment orders. The same came to be rejected by the endorsements at Annexures M, N and P. Hence, these writ petitions. 5. Learned counsel Smt. Vani H appearing for the petitioner would submit that the reasons assigned by the respondent No.1 for rejecting the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icient opportunity to the petitioner and huge demands were created based on the ground that no books of accounts were produced by the petitioner. In such circumstances, it was incumbent on the respondent No.1 to consider the books of accounts proposed to be submitted by the petitioner to determine the correct tax liability in accordance with law. 7. Learned AGA Sri. T.K.Vedamurthy appearing for the respondent supporting the impugned orders submitted that the petitioner has approached the first Appellate Authority against the re-assessment orders with an inordinate delay of 685 days and after realizing that the first Appellate Authority is not vested with the power to condone the delay beyond 210 days, has withdrawn the appeals and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wers to consider the rectification applications. The said reasons are against the tenor of Section 69(3) which specifies that it is only relating to any manner which has been so considered and decided, the Authority passing such order is precluded to rectify such orders. In other words, there is no embargo for the Assessing Authority to amend the order under sub-section(3) of Section 69 of the Act in relation to any matter other than which has been so considered and decided in proceedings by way of appeal or revision relating to an order referred to under sub-section (1) of Section 69 of the Act. Though the Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, no matter has been considered and decided on merits. That being the positio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
