Madras High Court quashes order imposing Tax liability and Penalty under TNVAT against BMW– P.D. Adikesavalu set aside the impugned order and directed the Respondent Authority to record the reply submitted by the
- GST: Calcutta High Court issues notices to Central & State over ITC Effect of GSTR-1 Return subject to 10% ITC for Purchase [Read Order]
- CBIC issues clarification on Custom Faceless Assessment on Issues raised by Stakeholders [Read Circular]
- GST Evasion: Patiala House Court refuses to grant Anticipatory Bail to person accused of claiming inadmissible ITC to the tune of Rs.500 Cr
- ITAT quashes proceedings initiated u/s. 201 against Cafe Coffee Day for being time barred [Read Order]
- Provisions of section 115JB are applicable to Insurance companies w.e.f April 1, 2003: Madras High Court [Read Judgment]
- CBIC issues instructions on verification of the Preferential Certificates of Origin in terms of CAROTAR Rules, 2020 [Read Circular]
- Normal Depreciation could be considered as a legitimate Deduction in Computing the Real Income: Madras HC grants relief to IIET [Read Order]
- Bombay High Court allows SBI to claim priority of charge on Property as Secured Creditor [Read Order]
- CESTAT sets aside demand of Service Tax on Commission received from Foreign Companies [Read Order]
- Rajasthan High Court allows petitioner to apply to GST Council to get CENVAT Credit benefit [Read Order]
Madras High Court quashes order imposing Tax liability and Penalty under TNVAT against BMW [Read Order]
The Madras High Court quashed the order imposing tax liability and penalty against BMW.
The respondent authority by Order had assessed the liability of the Petitioner, BMW for tax for the year 2014-2015 and imposed penalty under the TNVAT.
The Senior Counsel, Mr. Tarun Gulati appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Respondent Authority has hastily proceeded to pass the impugned Order entailing adverse civil consequences to the Petitioner in violation of the principles of natural justice.
The coram consists of P.D. Adikesavalu set aside the impugned order and directed the Respondent Authority to record the reply submitted by the Petitioner as an explanation to the notice.
The court further directed the Petitioner to appear before the First Respondent at 11.30 a.m. on December 21, 2020 with all supporting documents to substantiate its contentions.
“If the First Respondent is not in a position to take up the matter on that date, he shall inform the Petitioner of the adjourned date of hearing in the prescribed manner. It is incumbent upon the First Respondent to conduct inquiry affording full opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner following the prescribed procedure in consonance with the principles of natural justice, deal with each of the contentions raised and pass reasoned orders on merits and in accordance with law and communicate the decision taken to the Petitioner underwritten acknowledgment,” the court said.
