9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 1430X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HELD THAT:- This court is of the view that the issue involved herein is no longer res integra. A Division Bench of this court in HAVEA HANDLES COMPONENTS PVT. LTD. NOW KNOWN AS HAVEA FURNITURE INTERIORS PVT. LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) (FAC) ROYAPETTAH II ASSESSMENT CIRCLE CHENNAI [ 2014 (7) TMI 1367 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] considered the similar issue and held once it has been found that the orders impugned in the writ petitions are unsustainable on account of violation of principles of natural justice, it is wholly unnecessary to impose any condition while remitting the matter for fresh adjudication and in the considered opinion of this court, the direction given to the appellant / writ petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... receipt of a copy of this order. 9. On such amount being remitted by the petitioner, the respondent shall proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10.In case the petitioner fails to remit the aforesaid amount or to givea reply to the show cause notices dated 18.04.2018 and 23.08.2021, the respondent shall pass appropriate orders after reiterating the content of the impugned order. 11.This writ petition stands allowed with the above observations. No costs.Consequently, connected writ miscellaneous petition is closed. 3.The case of the appellant is that they are a works contractor engaged in the business of civil construction. For t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .No.25435 of 2021, which was allowed by the learned Judge, in the terms as extracted above. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant is before this court. 4.According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the respondent without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant, passed the assessment order dated 28.09.2021, which is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel further submitted that when the assessment order suffers from patent illegality and is liable to be quashed, the question of pre-deposit by the assessee does not arise. It is also submitted that the appellant already paid the entire tax due for the works contract during the relevant assessment year. Therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the view that the issue involved herein is no longer res integra. A Division Bench of this court in Havea Handles Components Pvt. Ltd v. the Assistant Commissioner (CT) (FAC), Royapettah II Assessment Circle, Chennai, by judgment dated 04.07.2014 in WA Nos.867 to 869 of 2014 , considered the similar issue and held as under: 6.It has to be pointed out, at this stage, that,once it has been found that the orders impugned in the writ petitions are unsustainable on account of violation of principles of natural justice, it is wholly unnecessary to impose any condition while remitting the matter for fresh adjudication and in the considered opinion of this court, the direction given to the appellant / writ petitioner to deposit 10% of the tax amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
