Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 4193 (MAD)

Farwood Industries Limited represented by the Managing Director v. Assistant Commissioner (CT), Sholinganallur Assessment Circle, Chennai

2016-12-21

RAJIV SHAKDHER

body2016
ORDER : 1. Issue Notice. Mr.K.Venkatesh, accepts notice for the respondent. 2. With the consent of counsel for parties, the Writ Petitions are taken up for final hearing and disposal. 3. The petitioner has impugned three (3) separate notices of even date, ie. 25.05.2015, whereby, the respondent proposed reversal of Input Tax Credit (in short ITC), availed of by the petitioner. The three Assessment Years (in short AYs) involved in the captioned Writ Petitions are: AY 2009-10, AY 2010-11 and AY 2014-15. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner has filed three (3) separate replies of even date, i.e., 26.02.2016. 5. The limited direction that the petitioner seeks is that before passing a final order, the respondent should consider the replies, independently, without being influenced by the observation made by any quasi-judicial authority. 6. The Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to pass an order after considering the replies/objections filed by the petitioner. 7. It is made clear that before the respondent passes an order in the matter, he will not only grant personal hearing, but would also supply all relied upon documents to the authorised representative of the petitioner. 8. Resultantly, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions stand closed. However, there will be no order as to costs.