9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 99X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aken by him – Also Section 77 of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 contains statutory bar which limits Civil Court from entertaining civil suit to set aside or modify any assessment made under Act – This provision was overlooked by trial court, while entertaining suit – Petitioner wanted Civil Court to be converted as appellate authority over authorities constituted under TNVAT Act – In view of said observations impugned order sustains – Decided against Assesse. - C. R. P. (NPD) (MD) No. 1400 of 2015a - - - Dated:- 27-7-2015 - K. K. Sasidharan, J. For the Appellant : Mr A L Kannan For the Respondent : None ORDER This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 04 March, 2015 in C.M.A.No.5 of 2014, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o.448 of 2007 primarily against the Commercial Tax Department. The petitioner wanted to quash the notice issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, Tiruchirappalli. The second respondent challenged the very maintainability of the suit. Even then, the suit was posted for trial. The petitioner failed to appear before the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, on the date of hearing. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge, therefore, dismissed the suit for default. 8. The petitioner filed I.A.No.246 of 2013 to restore the suit. The petitioner has given a reason that his child was laid up and as such, he failed to appear before the Trial Court. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge found that the very same petitioner filed another suit in O.S.No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uce accounts and the connected records. Since there was no response from the side of the petitioner, final notice was issued on 25 April, 2006, directing him to produce the records. Since accounts were not produced, the Assessing Officer issued a pre-assessment notice, fixing the taxable turnover for the years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. The petitioner was directed to submit his objection, within a period of fifteen days. The petitioner, without filing objection, straightaway filed the suit in O.S.No.388 of 2007 for the year 2003-2004 and the present suit in O.S.No.448 of 2007 for the assessment year 2004-2005. 11. The Trial Court in a very mechanical manner entertained the suits without addressing the basic issue as to whether the suit is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
