9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner was originally assessed on self assessment basis on a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 1,59,56,868/- vide proceedings of the respondent dated 25.03.2011. Subsequently a surprise inspection was conducted by the officials of the Commercial Taxes Department on 14.08.2010 and it was alleged that there was sales suppression in the alleged sales of computers under the garb of 'Transit Sales' and further suppression on account of the difference in turnover between the Trading Account and the Sales turnover reported in the monthly returns filed to the tune of Rs. 1,01,45,000/-. Based on the inspection results, the respondent issued a proposal notice dated 07.06.2011 to revise the assessment under Section 27 seeking to assess th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same with proper diligence and render apt findings, instead the respondent chose to reiterate his contentions and confirmed the assessment order, resulting in passing of the impugned order dated 22.12.2011. Hence, the petitioner has come up with the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.9671 of 2014. 4. It is further stated by the petitioner that during the assessment year 2009-2010, the petitioner was originally assessed on self assessment basis on a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 1,72,61,588/- vide proceedings of the respondent dated 01.06.2011. Subsequently a surprise inspection was conducted by the officials of the Commercial Taxes Department on 14.08.2010 and it was alleged that the lease rental receipts received from Tvl.BHEL, Trichy & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance of turnover was alleged, to the tune of Rs. 3,33,72,003/-. Based on the inspection results, the respondent issued a proposal notice dated 31.10.2011 to revise the assessment under Section 27 seeking to assess the alleged escaped turnover. In fact a common reply for all the assessment years under dispute was filed. But shockingly, the respondent completely overlooking the factum of reply having been filed for the earlier years, stated that no reply was filed for the proposal issued and proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 26.12.2011. Hence, the petitioner has come up with the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.9673 of 2014. 6. When this matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
