9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 848X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner, passed the impugned order, despite specific request made by the petitioner on those lines. Originally, the assessment was completed on 31.10.2012, accepting the returns filed by the petitioner under Section 22(2) of the TNVAT Act. The said assessment was sought to be re-opened by the authority under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, for escapement of assessment on the basis of the report filed by the Enforcement Wing authorities, which resulted in disallowance of sales return as well as reversal of ITC, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is not justifiable and the petitioner is entitled for the same. Apparently, without providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner of being heard the impugned order came to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 05.2012, an inspection was conducted by the Commercial Tax Officer, Group II, Enforcement Chennai (South), Chennai, under the jurisdiction of the 3rd respondent, wherein, the officials recorded statement, in and by which the petitioner categorically denied the ineligibility of input tax credit and submitted that all the records would be produced at the time of assessment. Though the original assessments were completed on 31.10.2012, accepting the returns by the 1st respondent, u/s 22(2) of TNVAT Act, the 1st respondent re-opened the assessment u/s 27 of TNVAT Act to make a revision of assessment as if there was an escapement of assessable taxable turnover relying on D-3 report forwarded by the 3rd respondent. A revision notice dated 28.03.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said assessment was sought to be re-opened by the authority under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, for escapement of assessment on the basis of the report filed by the Enforcement Wing authorities, which resulted in disallowance of sales return as well as reversal of ITC, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is not justifiable and the petitioner is entitled for the same. Apparently, without providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner of being heard the impugned order came to be passed. On this score itself, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. In the result, the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in TIN/33521344565/2011-12 dated 27.6.2014 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
