9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 933X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was concerned while the petitioner has assumed the issue all the issues were answered as the impugned orders were set aside and case was remitted back. The Department also did not choose to issue further prerevision notice on deficit stock which culminated in the subsequent orders. The issue relating to the stock deficit has not been addressed after the order was set aside by this Court on 18.09.2017 in W.P.Nos.16000 to 16004 of 2017 on account of the confusion that prevailed. Be that as it may, the issue has been alive in these proceedings, all through though the other two issue have been settled in favour of the petitioner and have been dropped. As far as deficit stock is concerned, it has be construed that the issue is still alive. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matters, are as follows:- (i) whether the percentage of loss of materials (invisible loss) as computed by the respondent is correct; and (ii) with regard to effect of Section 19(2)(5)* [*19(2)(v)] of the Act. 5. In paragraph Nos.5, 6 7, the Court observed as under: 5. However, in the instant case, such an exercise has not been done. Though on the date when the impugned order was passed, the decision in the case of Interfit Techno Products Ltd. Vs.Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai and another was very much available, wherein the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded back to submit objections and the assessment was ordered to be re-done. 6. So far as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the decisions rendered earlier, thus allowed the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner. This has lead to third round of assessment order all dated 07.12.2021 for these assessment years, which were more or less intended to give effect to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.14166, 14176, 14171, 14173 14175 of 2021 dated 11.08.2021. 9. The respondents have now issued the impugned demand notice seeking to demand the amount of tax towards deficit stock of goods during these assessment years which were confirmed in the first round of assessment order dated 29.05.2017 and 02.06.2017. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order that the amount confirmed on the deficit stock vide order dated 02.05.2017 and 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue which stood confirmed long before is being enforced. 13. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the 1st respondent also would submit that these issues were also mentioned in the subsequent pre revision notice issued subsequent to passing of the order dated 18.09.2017 in W.P.Nos.16000 to 16004 of 2017 and consequential order passed pursuant to order dated 11.08.2021 in W.P.Nos.14166, 14176, 14171, 14173 14175 of 2021. It is therefore submitted that there is no merits in the challenge to the impugned recovery notice. 14. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate for 1st respondent. 15. The order that was passed by this Court on 18.09.2017 is obvi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
