Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

Sri Gangai Oil Mill vs The Principal Commissioner And

Madras High Court|11 January, 2017

JUDGMENT / ORDER

1.Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, who appears for the respondents, has reverted with instructions.
1.1.He says that in so far as advance tax is concerned, the same methodology would be followed, that is, the compounding fee paid by the petitioner would be remitted to the Assessing Authority / second respondent, to be treated as advance tax.
2.Counsel for the petitioner says that he is agreeable, if a direction is being passed on the statement made on behalf of the respondents.
3.Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the third respondent to remit the sum of Rs.1,64,455-00 as advance tax, to the Assessing Authority / second respondent. No costs.
1.The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes 2nd Floor, Ezhilagam Building, Chepauk, Chennai  600 005.
2.The Assistant Commissioner (CT) Kangeyam Assessment Circle Kangeyam.
3.The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (Enforcement) Roving Squad  II, Coimbatore  18.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.
TK W.P.NO.34640 OF 2016 11.01.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Sri Gangai Oil Mill vs The Principal Commissioner And

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
11 January, 2017