9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 528X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for revision of assessment, is subject to the consideration of the objections to be filed by the petitioner, and only after receipt of the objections, the respondent could form any opinion in accordance with law. The claim of the petitioner that the Enforcement Wing Officer's report cannot form the basis for the impugned revision of assessment and he has no role to act as Assessing Officer and the respondent cannot simply adopt the D-3 proposal, which is a matter for concern before the respondent on filing the objections by the petitioner. Writ Petitions disposed of, with a direction to the petitioner-Company to file their objections to the impugned revision notices, before the respondent, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order & the respondent shall consider the same, afford an opportunity of hearing, bear in mind the provision of law and thereafter take a decision uninfluenced by the report of the Enforcement Wing Officer and pass appropriate orders, on merits. - W. P. Nos. 9302 to 9307 of 2013 & M.P.No.1 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 10-4-2013 - V. Dhanapalan,J. For petitioner : Mr. R. L. Ramani Senior Counsel for Mr. B. Raveendran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le Returns in Form K, they are not eligible to purchase goods from other States and called upon the petitioner to pay tax @ 12.5% on the inter-State purchase turnover. The petitioner filed their objections on 22.6.2012, stating that the purchases were for the SEZ unit, and therefore, there is exemption from levy of tax. Subsequently, nothing has been heard from the respondent. (d) The petitioner's place of business was inspected by the Enforcement Wing Officer on 19.7.2012, who pointed out certain defects, before whom, the petitioner informed that they would pay the tax if they are liable, after obtaining advice from their Auditor. One of the said defects pointed out is that the petitioner is not eligible to file Form K and they have to file Returns in Form I and pay tax at the appropriate rate and not @ 0.5%. The petitioner through their Advocate, claims that since inter-State purchases are made by them, they cannot file their Returns in Form K and they have to report the sale of scrap in Form I and pay tax @ 4% under Entry 122 of Part B of the First Schedule to the TNVAT Act and they undertook to pay the same. However, the respondent issued the impugned notices proposing t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... machinery) and vehicles from various dealers within the State and from outside the State. The petitioner commenced their service operations in 2000 in the State of Tamil Nadu. Due to efflux of time, the various infrastructures purchased by them became scrap and they sell the same to various persons. As the petitioner does not deal/trade in these assets, they cannot be called a dealer under the provisions of the TNGST Act or the TNVAT Act. In order to meet the accounting standards and to maintain transparency in the business, they have registered themselves under the TNGST Act, filed monthly Returns, reported the sale of scrap and paid the tax thereon as and when such sale of scrap takes place. After coming into force of the TNVAT Act, the petitioner was assigned a TIN Registration Number and they continued to report the sale of scrap (discarded furniture, computer, vehicles, etc.,) and paid tax @ 0.5% under Form K from January 2006. 8. There was notice issued to the petitioner on 21.5.2012, intimating them that since they opted to file Returns in Form K, they are not eligible to purchase goods from other States and called upon the petitioner to pay tax @ 12.5% on the inter-St ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rfere with such notice issued by the authority. 12. In this case, no grave injustice is meted out to the petitioner and there is not even any infringement of fundamental rights. Even in respect of the following the principles of nature justice, it is seen that the respondent rightly offered an opportunity of being heard by asking the petitioner to file their objections to the impugned notices. Hence, it is not for the petitioner to hastily come to this Court in the stage of notice 13. In the present case, the petitioner-Company has not availed of the opportunity given to them by filing objections to the impugned notices. The grievance of the petitioner is in respect of levying higher rate of tax at 12.5% instead of 4%, which is a matter to be adjudicated before the authority concerned. The approach of the petitioner in rushing to this Court by filing these Writ Petitions, challenging the notices 'simpliciter', without even filing the objections before the respondent, cannot be sustained. 14. At this stage, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out the observations made by the First Bench of this Court in the said W.A.Nos.521 and 522 of 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
