Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Petitioner Vs. Respondent

Petitioner vs Respondent

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Madurai Decided Aug 04, 2016
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1189277

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai Madurai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
W.P(MD).Nos. 13963 & 13964 of 2016 & W.M.P.(MD).Nos. 10388 & 10389 of 2016
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Petitioner

Respondent

Respondent

Excerpt

t. raja, j. 1. the impugned proceedings are issued by the commercial tax officer (fac), pattukkottai, calling upon the petitioner-firm to give a reply as to why a revision of assessment should not be made on the ground that there was an escapement of turn over to be assessed under section 27(1)(a) of the act. challenging the said action of the respondent, the petitioner is before this court. 2. it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-firm that as per old act, since the respondent has not initiated any proceedings in the last five years or as per the new act, within the six years, the impugned proceedings are barred by limitation and thus, it cannot be issued to the petitioner-firm. secondly, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-firm that when penalty was sought to be levied, as per the settled legal position of law, the petitioner-firm should have been given a personal hearing to defend his case, before passing the impugned orders. however, it is not done in the case on hand. 3. per contra, learned government advocate submitted that the respondent is entitled to make assessment of the turn over of the petitioner-firm till 2018. however, he seeks time to file a detailed counter in this regard and also to find out whether any assessment order has been passed by the respondent. 4. considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 5. in the light of the factual position, the respondent is directed to maintain status quo till 18.08.2016. notice through court as well as privately returnable by 18.08.2016.

Full Judgment

T. Raja, J.

1. The impugned proceedings are issued by the Commercial Tax Officer (FAC), Pattukkottai, calling upon the petitioner-firm to give a reply as to why a revision of assessment should not be made on the ground that there was an escapement of turn over to be assessed under Section 27(1)(a) of the Act. Challenging the said action of the respondent, the petitioner is before this Court.

2. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner-firm that as per old Act, since the respondent has not initiated any proceedings in the last five years or as per the new Act, within the six years, the impugned proceedings are barred by limitation and thus, it cannot be issued to the petitioner-firm. Secondly, it is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner-firm that when penalty was sought to be levied, as per the settled legal position of law, the petitioner-firm should have been given a personal hearing to defend his case, before passing the impugned orders. However, it is not done in the case on hand.

3. Per contra, learned Government Advocate submitted that the respondent is entitled to make assessment of the turn over of the petitioner-firm till 2018. However, he seeks time to file a detailed counter in this regard and also to find out whether any assessment order has been passed by the respondent.

4. Considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

5. In the light of the factual position, the respondent is directed to maintain status quo till 18.08.2016. Notice through Court as well as privately returnable by 18.08.2016.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial