- Delhi HC refuses Anticipatory Bail to person alleged of Money Laundering [Read Judgment]
- Allahabad High Court allows inquiry by GST Authorities collaterally with the Proceedings [Read Judgment]
- GST: Patiala House Court refuses to grant Bail to person accused of Fraudulently availing ITC to tune of Rs.7 Cr [Read Order]
- Telangana High Court directs Income Tax Authority to Refund Seized Cash of Rs. 5 Cr with 12% interest [Read Order]
- Losses on account of Exchange Fluctuation on Forward Contracts are allowable as Deduction: ITAT [Read Order]
- Chartered Accountants are not permitted to share Client Information with Credit Rating Agencies except if permitted by Auditee Client: ICAI
- Madras High Court directs payment of Rs.3 Lakhs for quashing of Assessment Orders [Read Judgment]
- Registration has to be granted if no evidence to show activities of Trust are not being carried out genuinely: ITAT [Read Order]
- Central Govt. notifies Customs Authority for Advance Rulings Regulations, 2021 [Read Notification]
- Assessing Authority can’t disallow Business Expenditure incurred in form of Postage, Courier and Stationery Charges: Madras High Court [Read Judgment]
Madras High Court directs payment of Rs.3 Lakhs for quashing of Assessment Orders [Read Judgment]
The Madras High court directed the payment of Rs.3 Lakhs for quashing of assessment orders.
The petitioner, Tvl.G.Sankar Timber Depot has challenged the assessment orders in writ petitions on the ground that no sufficient opportunity was granted by the respondent to the petitioner before passing of the impugned assessment orders and the principles of natural justicehas been violated.
Mr. S.Karunakar, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the State was under lock down, when the first show-cause notice was issued by the respondent. On receipt of the said show-cause notices, the petitioner by his reply, has requested the respondent to furnish the copies of the documents to them, which is the basis for the show cause notices, issued by the respondent.
Mrs. J.Padmavathi Devi, the Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioner by the respondent and only thereafter, the impugned assessment orders have been passed. According to her, personal hearing was also afforded to the petitioner.
However, the petitioner chose not to appear for personal hearing before the respondent. Therefore, according to her, the present writ petition is not maintainable, since the principles of natural justice have not been violated by the respondent.
The Single Judge bench of Justice Abdul Quddhose noted that the show cause notices were issued on August 3, 2020 and the impugned assessment orders have been issued on October 31, 2020, within a short period of three months.
The court said that when it is the categorical stand of the petitioner that they are not liable to pay the demand as claimed by the respondent, the respondent ought to have given sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to raise all objections.
However, the Court considering the huge amount of taxes payable as seen from the impugned assessment orders, the Court will have to put the petitioner on terms, before the impugned orders are quashed and remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law.
The Court directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000 in respect of each of the impugned assessment orders of the respondent on or before January 5, 2021 and on such payment, the impugned assessment orders shall stand quashed and the matter remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration and the respondent shall pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law, after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner to raise all their objections and also grant them the right of personal hearing within a period of 12 weeks from the date of payment of the conditional amount imposed under the order.