9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... balance 50% of the disputed tax as volunteered by them, and on such payment and furnishing of bank guarantee, the appellate authority shall entertain the appeals and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity to the petitioner. The said exercise shall be completed by the appellate authority within a period of six weeks thereafter. Further making it clear that till the disposal of the appeals, there shall not be any recovery. - Petition disposed of. - W. P. Nos. 38062 to 38067 of 2015 and M. P. Nos. 1 & 2 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 30-11-2015 - The Honourable Mr. Justice R. Mahadevan, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. N. Inbarajan For the Respondents : Mr. S. Manoharan Sundaram, AGP ORDER Mr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the execution of such works contracts and on the basis of the availability of exemption Notification. Besides, the petitioner also had inter-state purchases, which also fell under both categories, i.e., 4% and 12.5%. The purchases and transfers were duly reported by the petitioner and applicable taxes were paid. 3.3 Further, according to the petitioner, finding errors in the monthly returns for the month of April 2007, the petitioner also filed revised return for the month on 16.07.2007 and thus the monthly returns reflected the correct and actual state of affairs. The petitioner would state that the returns so filed completely and accurately reported all purchases and all sales made by the petitioner inside the State of Tamil Nadu dur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be incorrect, for any reason, he ought to have issued a proper show cause notice. Thus, according to the petitioner, the impugned proceedings suffers from gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 3.6 Upon receipt of the impugned orders dated 15.11.2012, since the first respondent has not taken into account the details furnished by the petitioner, thought it fit to file applications for rectification under Section 84 of the VAT Act and accordingly filed the same. Since, no orders were passed, the petitioner filed W.P.Nos.34459 to 34461 of 2012 before this Court on 19.12.2012, praying for a direction to pass orders on the rectification petitions dated 12.12.2012 and this Court, by order dated 19.12.2012, granted the said rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , he ought to have formed the view that the turnover has escaped assessment after the completion of the deemed assessment on 30.06.2012, however, no such view was formed by the 1st respondent. The notice dated 28.08.2010 issued before the completion of deemed assessment on 30.06.2012 is insufficient and not a show cause notice for the purpose of Section 27(1)(a) of the TNVAT Act. 4.3 It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that unless the 1st respondent had formed view that the turnover of the business of the petitioner had escaped assessment, unless the 1st respondent had issued a show cause notice after forming that view, the 1st respondent could not have completed any proceeding under Section 27(1)(a) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled by the petitioner. Therefore, the notice dated 28.08.2010 is clearly a nullity and the 1st respondent ought to have issued a fresh show cause notice after completion of the deemed assessment on 30.06.2012. 4.6 As far as the appeals filed by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent are concerned, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the 2nd respondent has failed to see that consequent to the passing of the revised proceedings dated 15.05.2014 by the 1st respondent, the only effective and operative order in force in the eyes of law was that order and hence the petitioner is entitled to challenge the correctness of the demands contained in the orders dated 15.11.2012, as revised by the proceedings of the 1st respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de and perused the materials available on record. 8. When there are certain legal issues which the 1st appellate authority had failed to consider, the points now raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner deserve to be considered by this Court. Hence, in the interest of justice, this Court is of the view that the petitioner may be permitted to challenge the assessment orders dated 15.11.2012 before the appellate authority. 9. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to challenge the assessment orders dated 15.11.2012 before the 2nd respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall comply payment of 50% of the disputed tax within a period of four weeks from the date o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
