Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. In support of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for writ petitioner pressed into service a judgment made by a Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court being Interfit Techno Products Ltd., Vs. Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Commercial Taxes reported in [2015] 01 VST 389 (Mad). The most relevant part of the said judgment is contained in sub- paragraph (3) of the operative portion and the same reads as follows:

13. In response to the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for writ petitioner, learned Revenue counsel i.e., State counsel, submitted that the writ petitioner has not furnished any quantitative details to substantiate the burning loss and therefore, in the absence of quantitative details from the writ petitioner, there is no way by which the respondent Assessing Officer could have embarked upon the exercise of ascertaining the quantum of loss i.e, a fact finding exercise, based on Interfit Techno principle.

http://www.judis.nic.in

d) If the writ petitioner avails the personal hearing on the aforesaid date, time and venue and if quantitative details qua burning loss are produced, the same shall be considered by the Assessing Officer and fresh assessment orders shall be passed in accordance with law and more particularly bearing in mind Interfit Techno Products principle of this Court.