Gajaananda Jewellery Mart India (P) Ltd. v. Assessment Unit

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 211 (Mad-HC) IN THE MADRAS HIGH COURT C.SARAVANAN J. Gajaananda Jewellery Mart India (P) Ltd. v. Assessment Unit W.P. Nos. 13871 and 9005 of 2023 And W.M.P. Nos. 13523, 13526, 13527, 9122 and 9123 of 2023 13 December, 2023 Petitioner by: R.V.Easwar Senior Counsel for Adithya Reddy Respondent by: R.S.Balaji Senior Panel Counsel COMMON ORDER *By this Common Order, both the Writ Petitions are being disposed of.* 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned Assessment Order dated 28-2-2023 bearing No.ITBA/PNL/S/270A/2022-2023/1050188736(1) in W.P.No.13871 of 2023 and the impugned Order dated 28-2-2023bearing No.ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2022-2023/1050188651(1) and the consequential notice dated 19-4-2023 bearing ITBA/PNL/F/270A/2023- 2024/1052197216(1) in W.P.No.13871 of 2023. 3. This is the second round of litigation before this Court. Earlier, the petitioner had challenged the Assessment Order dated 26-9-2022 on the ground that the petitioner was not given the opportunity of personal hearing. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 211 (Mad-HC)

IN THE MADRAS HIGH COURT

C.SARAVANAN J.

Gajaananda Jewellery Mart India (P) Ltd. v. Assessment Unit

W.P. Nos. 13871 and 9005 of 2023 And W.M.P. Nos. 13523, 13526, 13527, 9122 and 9123 of 2023

13 December, 2023

Petitioner by: R.V.Easwar Senior Counsel for Adithya Reddy

Respondent by: R.S.Balaji Senior Panel Counsel

COMMON ORDER

By this Common Order, both the Writ Petitions are being disposed of.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned Assessment Order dated 28-2-2023 bearing No.ITBA/PNL/S/270A/2022-2023/1050188736(1) in W.P.No.13871 of 2023 and the impugned Order dated 28-2-2023bearing No.ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2022-2023/1050188651(1) and the consequential notice dated 19-4-2023 bearing ITBA/PNL/F/270A/2023- 2024/1052197216(1) in W.P.No.13871 of 2023.

3. This is the second round of litigation before this Court. Earlier, the petitioner had challenged the Assessment Order dated 26-9-2022 on the ground that the petitioner was not given the opportunity of personal hearing.