Aditya Infotech LTD. vs. Assistant Commissioner
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the respondent for quashing of the notice Ext.P3 issued under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act, 2003 and for a mandamus directing the 1st respondent to consider Exts.P4 and P5 for personal hearing. However, during the pendency of the writ petition e-mail dated 09.03.2020 received, fixing date for personal hearing on 12th March 2020. This has not been denied by state counsel. In view of the fact that the Assistant Commissioner, Special Circle III, Ernakulam has given a personal hearing, the grievance of the petitioner for the time being stands vindicated. Let the decision after affording reasonable opportunity be taken on the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. This writ petition stands disposed of. AMIT RAWAL nak JUDGE
WP(C).No.7118 OF 2020(L) 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF ANNUAL RETURN DATED 25.06.2015 SUBMITTED FOR THE YEAR 2103- 14, BEFORE 1ST RESPLENDENT, WITH PROOF OF PAYMENT OF OUTPUT TAX, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. EXHIBIT P2OF ONLINE AUDIT REPORT DATED 03.07.2015 IN FORM NO 13 AND 13A, FOR 2013-14, SUBMITTED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT, ALONG WITH REMARKS OF AUDITOR. EXHIBIT P3OF NOTICE DATED 18.01.2020 ISSUED TO PETITIONER FOR 2013-14 U/S.25(1) OF THE KVAT ACT 2003, PROPOSING TO COMPLETE BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT, AFTER MAKING ADDITIONS, ALLEGING UNACCOUNTED TRANSLATION. EXHIBIT P4OF LETTER DATED 03.03.2020 SUBMITTED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT, ALONG WITH DEBIT/CREDIT NOTE FOR THE SALES //// P.A TO JUDGE
Reproduced from the public record of the Kerala High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.