9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x Act, 2006 (in short 'Act'). 2.The petitioner is a company that claims to be family owned. It had developed 47 Villas in its own property and for the purposes of such development had, according to it, entrusted the construction to a sub-contractor, one M/s.M.G.S. Builder and Company, Coonoor. According to the petitioner, both the Contractor as well as it itself had paid tax under the compounding provisions not realizing that the project was one and the same and liability for tax would fall only upon one or the other. 3.While this is so, the enforcement wing had inspected the premises of the petitioner company as well as that of the builders and on the ground that the petitioner had made interstate purchase of timber which militat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was again sought to submit a reply. Thus, and effectively there had been no response given for the notices issued from 20.08.2018 onwards and the matter had been dragged on till March 2019. While receiving the request dated 27.03.2019, the Assessing Authority has made a categoric note in the letter delivery book to the effect that though time would be granted, it would be limited only till 05.04.2019. 8.This would answer the objections of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that had the officer not intended to grant the time sought for, a specific order should have been passed by him communicating this fact to the petitioner. He relies in this regard upon Circular No.7 dated 03.02.2014. 9.I have perused the relevant porti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the dealer irrespective of whether the dealer has opted for personal hearing or not.' The direction of the Commissioner was to the effect that any request for extension of time shall be examined by the authority and reply furnished to the dealer regarding either extension or refusal of such request. 10.I am of the view that the requirement under the Circular has been fully satisfied in this case, since, even while receiving letter dated 27.03.2019, there is an endorsement made by the officer in the delivery book of the petitioner restricting the time sought till 05.04.2019. Thus, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that he was unaware of whether the time sought was granted or not. 11.On the ground of violation of principle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to tax by the contractor, there would be no liability that would survive in the hands of the petitioner. In this context, I may refer to one averment in the writ affidavit wherein the petitioner, at paragraph-3, states that - "The petitioner company constructed their own offices, restaurant and building for amenities and whereas they entrusted the job of construction of 47 villas to subcontractor M/s.M.G.S.Builders & Co., Coonoor." 15.This leads me to infer that while the construction of the 47 Villas had been entrusted to the sub-contractor, the scope of work that remained in the hands of the petitioner was the construction of its own offices and the restaurants and various amenities that would be shared by them with the Villas as well ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
