9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 04.12.2020 was sustained. It is however made clear that equitable principles of estoppal will not apply on tax and equity are strangers like chalk and cheese. Therefore, merely the first revised notice dated 28.11.2017 proposed a sum of Rs. 3,15,489/- ipso facto would not mean the respondent was precluded for issuing a revised notice dated 04.12.2020 proposing to revised escaped turnover of Rs. 17,12,472/-. The order has to clearly discuss the same. Therefore, to balance the interest of the parties, Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order and the remits the case back to re-do the adjudication on merits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Conclusion - The impugned order was def ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 28.12.2020 and that the petitioner was also heard on 20.10.2021, wherein, it was the objection of the petitioner that the demand cannot be inflated which was however overruled during the personal hearing. Therefore, the petitioner had filed a objection notice on 01.11.2021 by which time, the impugned order dated 10.03.2022 had been passed. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are plethora of decision of this Court as per which demands cannot be inflated by issuance of revised notices as they would cause prejudice to an assessee. He would also submit that the impugned order has been passed on 10.03.2022 after the limitation expired on 31.10.2022 to pass the revised impugned Assessment order. 7. The learned couns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cators 2024 SCC Online Mad 5375. 12. However, it is noticed that the impugned order has not considered the objection of the petitioner as far as defence of the petitioner on merits of the case. It is merely states that the petitioner had filed a reply dated 28.12.2020, in which, they have stated that the present proceedings were barred by limitation and therefore penalty under Section 27(3) of the Act was also justified. 13. A reading of the impugned order indicates that barring discussion on the limitation and a conclusion that there was a escaped turnover there is no clear discussion as to how the proposal contained in the revised notice dated 04.12.2020 was sustained. It is however made clear that equitable principles of estoppal will ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
