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

Tvl.Triple Helex Industries vs 3 The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

Madras High Court|09 January, 2017

JUDGMENT / ORDER

1.Issue notice. Mr.K.Venkatesh, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the counsels for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal.
2.This writ petition is directed against the order dated 14.10.2016 passed by the third respondent. By virtue of the impugned order, the petitioner has been called upon to pay after requisite adjustments, tax in the sum of Rs.60,37,225/-.
3.Counsel for the petitioner says that the impugned order is flawed for the following reasons:
3.1.Firstly, that against the proposal to levy tax, the petitioner had filed a letter dated 26.09.2016, seeking 30 days time to file 'C' Forms and Export documents. The impugned order would show that the respondent had granted only 15 days. Furthermore, the impugned order, according to the learned counsel, shows that the respondent claims that another 15 days were granted, albeit upto 15.10.2016. According to the counsel for the petitioner, if, another 15 days would have been granted, then, the given time frame would have expired on 26.10.2016. Counsel says that in any event the impugned order was passed as indicated above on 14.10.2016.
3.2.Secondly, the petitioner takes the stand that, despite, having made a request on 14.12.2016 that the relevant 'C' Forms were available, albeit, after a notice of demand dated 02.12.2016 was issued, the request made was brushed aside by the respondents by issuing an attachment order dated 22.12.2016.
4.Counsel for the petitioner in support of his submissions relies upon the order dated 14.12.2016, passed in W.P.Nos.2799 and 2800 of 2016.
5.I have asked Mr.Venkatesh, who appears for the respondents that given the petitioner's claim that the original 'C' Forms and Export documents are available, could the assessment be redone after giving opportunity to the petitioner to present the same before respondent no.2.
6.Learned counsel says that there would be no difficulty in respondent no.2 re-doing the assessment after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to present the 'C' Forms and Export documents, in original.
7.Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside. The petitioner will appear before the respondent no.2 on 31.01.2017 at 11.00 a.m. On the said date the petitioner will present the original 'C' Forms along with original Export documents, whereupon, respondent no.2, will pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner's authorised representative. In case, the aforementioned date is not convenient to respondent no.2, he shall fix a fresh date after giving due written notice to the petitioner.
8.The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. No costs. Consequently, pending applications are closed.
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

Tvl.Triple Helex Industries vs 3 The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
09 January, 2017