9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 853X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2009, on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified time fixed by this court, after giving an opportunity of the hearing to the petitioner. He had also prayed that till the second respondent disposed of the representation of the petitioner, dated October 27, 2009, the second respondent may be directed not to deposit the cheques issued by the petitioner on October 8, 2009. Thus the second respondent is directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, dated October 27, 2009 on merits, and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Further, the second respondent is also directed not to deposit the chequ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... selling fire works, including coloured matches, liable to be taxed at the rate of 12.5 per cent, falling under serial No. 35 of Part C of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The petitioners had opted to pay the tax under section 3(4) of the Value Added Tax Act, inasmuch as the sale of taxable goods for a year will be less than Rs. 50 lakhs. Accordingly, they were filing their returns in form K, as per rule 7(1)(d) of the Value Added Tax Rules. The petitioner had filed return up to the month of September, 2009 and paid the taxes on the disclosed turnover. While so, on October 8, 2009, there was an inspection by the office of the second respondent, under instructions from the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Tirunelveli. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jurisdiction to make necessary orders of assessment to collect the tax, under section 22 of the Value Added Tax Act, 2006. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this court, under article 226 of the Constitution of India. At this stage of hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the second respondent is directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, dated October 27, 2009, on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified time fixed by this court, after giving an opportunity of the hearing to the petitioner. He had also prayed that till the second respondent disposed of the representatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
