9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 1047X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posed of with a direction to the writ petitioner to file their proof of objections within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the respondents shall consider the same in accordance with law and on merits, give an opportunity of hearing to the dealer and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of eight weeks thereafter. Till such time, the respondents are directed not to proceed with the recovery order - Stay granted. - Writ Petition Nos: 2931, 2932, 2933, 2939 and 2940 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 3-2-2014 - Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Dhanapalan,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. V. T. Gopalan Senior Counsel for M/s. Lakshmikumaran For the Respondents : Mr. V. Haribabu Addl. Government Pleader (Tax) ORDER Heard Mr. V.T. Gopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and Mr. V. Haribabu, learned Additional Government Pleader (Tax) who takes notice for the respondents. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel on either side, all these writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner company is engaged in the business of selling inter alia automobiles. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .5%. Similarly, it was also proposed to levy tax on a best judgment basis on the difference between the purchase turnover as shown in the trial balance (Rs.18,565.92 lakhs) and the purchase as shown in the returns (Rs.560.32 lakhs). Petitioner filed its reply on 27.08.2013 stating that there was no sales suppression; the sales as per the trial balance included entry tax and did not deduct the trade discount given by the petitioner. The returns, on the other hand, was annexed fully reconciling the difference to the last rupee. Same way, as far the purchase omission, the petitioner had stated that there was no purchase omission. It was submitted that the difference in purchase turnover between the trial balance and the monthly sales tax returns in Form I to the TNVAT Act was essentially due to the fact that in the annexures to Form I the evidence of inter-state purchases was shown and were included in electronic form and thus, there was no actual purchase suppression. However, on 09.12.2013, the 1st respondent had issued an order rejecting all the submissions made by the petitioner in the reply and challenging the same, petitioner is before this Court in W.P. No: 2931 of 2014. 6. F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ales as per the trial balance included entry tax and did not deduct the trade discount given by the petitioner. The returns, on the other hand, was annexed fully reconciling the difference to the last rupee. Same way, as far the purchase omission, the petitioner had stated that there was no purchase omission. It was submitted that the difference in purchase turnover between the trial balance and the monthly sales tax returns in Form I to the TNVAT Act was essentially due to the fact that in the annexures to Form I the evidence of inter-state purchases was shown and were included in electronic form and thus, there was no actual purchase suppression. However, on 12.12.2013, the 1st respondent had issued an order rejecting all the submissions made by the petitioner in the reply and challenging the same, petitioner is before this Court in W.P. No: 2932 of 2014. 9. For the assessment year 2007-08, the petitioner was assessed on a self assessment basis for a total and taxable turnover of Rs.213,45,88,664/- under the TNVAT Act. This was confirmed by an order TIN / 33690962728 / 2007-08 dated 30.03.2012 issued by the 1st respondent. A nominal excess tax of Rs.1,740/- was found to have be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , HDFC Bank, Post Box No: 5106, Shankaranarayanan Building, No: 25/1, M.G. Road, Bangalore 560 001. The notice stated that a sum of Rs.282,65,64,788/- was due to the Government from the petitioner herein towards arrears of tax and required the bank, under Section 45 of the TNVAT Act, to pay forthwith the money due held by the bank, within fifteen days from the date of service of the said notice. Subsequent to the receipt of the aforesaid notice, the Bank had frozen he petitioner's Account No: 00090310002261 and hence, challenging the said notice petitioner has filed W.P. No: 2939 of 2014. 13. Similarly, the 1st respondent issued a notice of recovery of money due in Form U, addressed to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India at No: 52/36, Gandhi Mandapam Road, Kotturpuram, Chennai. The notice stated that a sum of Rs.282,65,64,788/- was due to the Government from the petitioner herein towards arrears of tax and required the bank, under Section 45 of the TNVAT Act, to pay forthwith the money due held by the bank, within fifteen days from the date of service of the said notice. Subsequent to the receipt of the aforesaid notice, the Bank had frozen he petitioner's Account No: 3020888 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he facts pleaded by the petitioner in W.P. No: 2931 of 2014 is taken for consideration for the sake of convenience. At the first instance, the dealer was issued with a notice on 06.05.2013 asking for copies of month returns in Form I for the period from April 2008 to March 2009 along with Annexures I to IV. The petitioner was also asked to furnish necessary documents pertaining to payment of works contract tax and the payment details of the difference between the tax paid under the TNVAT Act and the tax paid as per the assessment order. By a reply dated 26.06.2013, the petitioner stated that the monthly returns sought for were available in the Office of the Adyar II Assessment Circle and that the details sought for viz. the customer-wise details and the work contract tax were enclosed in the respective monthly tax returns filed. The petitioner had also stated that the difference of tax was paid as Works Contract Tax for consecutive financial years by themselves and they were not collected from the customers. Thereafter, a revised notice dated 19.07.2013 was issued by the 1st respondent, proposing to tax the difference between the sales reported in the trial balance and the sales tu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
