Allowed

M/s. Shree Bhahubali v. The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

Madras HC5 Jan 2016WP/39778/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a writ petition seeking certification to set aside an order disallowing Input Tax Credit. The petitioner failed to file objections to a revision notice due to inadvertence but possessed necessary documents. The Court granted a fresh opportunity to object.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; petitioner granted two weeks to file objections and supportive documents; respondent directed to consider objections and pass order on merits within six weeks including perso

M/s. Shree Bhahubali Vs The Assistant Commissioner(Ct) — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 05.01.2016 CORAM

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶4

Writ Petition No.39778 of 2015 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2015

¶5

M/s.Shree Bhahubali Interlining, rep. by its Proprietor, No.32, Chellappa Street, Ottery, Chennai - 600 012. ... Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The Assistant Commissioner (CT) Choolai Assessment Circle, Chennai. ... Respondent

¶8

Prayer:Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for records of the respondent in TIN No.33900482705/2007-08, dated 18.11.2015, and to quash the same.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mrs.C.Rekha Kumari

¶10

For Respondent : Mr.S.Manoharan Sundaram Additional Government Pleader

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the proceedings of the respondent, dated 18.11.2015, bearing TIN No.33900482705/2007-08, whereby, the petitioner's claim for Input Tax Credit has been disallowed.

¶13

The petitioner-Firm is an assessee on the files of the respondent. Though self assessment order was passed in respect of the assessment year 2007-2008, on 31.12.2013, the respondent, on further scrutiny of files related to the said assessment year, issued a notice, dated 07.04.2015, proposing to reverse the petitioner's claim for ITC, and sought for reply/objection to be filed within 15 days. Though the said revision notice was received by the Accountant attached to the petitioner-Firm, who by presuming that the same would have no adverse consequences, failed to file reply, and the same was also not brought to the knowledge of the petitioner. Since no reply/objection was forthcoming from the petitioner, the respondent has passed the impugned order, dated 18.11.2015, confirming the proposals made in the revision notice, dated 07.04.2015. Aggrieved by the said impugned order, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

Though various grounds are raised in this Writ Petition, challenging the order, dated 18.11.2015, Mrs.C.Rekha Kumari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that due to inadvertence, the petitioner failed to file reply to the revised notice, dated 07.04.2015, and prayed that the petitioner may be given one more opportunity to file reply to the revision notice, as they are in possession of all necessary documentary evidence to substantiate their claim for ITC.

¶16

On the aforesaid submission, heard the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent.

¶17

In view of the above submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to file reply/objection to the revision notice, as the said course would obviously meet the ends of justice.

¶18

In the light of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to file necessary objections to the notice, dated 07.04.2015, together with supportive documents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As and when such objection is filed by the petitioner, the respondent is directed to consider the same and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks thereafter, by granting opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶19

Sd/Assistant Registrar(J) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

¶20

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

¶23

The Assistant Commissioner (CT) Choolai Assessment Circle, Chennai.

¶24

+1cc to M/s. C. Rekha Kumari, Advocate, S.R.No.477 +1cc to the Special Government Pleader, S.R.No.453

¶25

AK(CO)
EU(25/01/2015)
Writ Petition No.39778 of 2015

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/s. Shree Bhahubali v. The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Shree Bhahubali v. The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Perumal Vs K.Veera Raghava Rao IAS

M/s.Badani Jewellers Vs The Deputy Commissioner (Ct)

M/s.Bismillah Industrial Vs The Assistant Commissioner

M.Giri, Vs The District Collector

G.Manikandan Vs The Transport Commissioner

Mahindra Residential Vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax