9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 673X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent in the impugned proceedings are nothing, but ineligibility of concessional rate of tax on certain turnover due to defective forms which are to be corrected and counter signed by the authority who issued and the same was done subsequently. So there cannot be any justifiable reason to reject the application under section 84 of TNVAT Act, that too, without any opportunity. Matter is remitted back to the assessing authority/respondent for passing orders afresh. - W. P. No. 37076 of 2015, M. P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 26-11-2015 - R. Mahadevan, J. For the Appellant : Mr. M Mohammed Shaffiq For the Respondent : Mr. V Haribabu Addl. Government Pleader ORDER By consent, both the writ petitions are taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... %. The petitioner's claim of exemption on stock transfer on a turnover of ₹ 79,46,717/- was rejected in view of non-submission of Form F and the claim of Sales return on a turnover of ₹ 72,48,472/- was rejected for want of supporting documents. Upon receipt of the above order, the petitioner filed a rectification petition on 22.3.2015 under Section 84 of TNVAT Act along with relevant documents requesting for rectification of error in calculating tax on interstate sale, revised return of total and taxable turn over, C Form, F Forms and Sales returns etc. But the respondent without considering the petitioner's submissions rejected the petitioner's request for rectification without giving any reason on 30.4.2015. Therea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not furnished any supporting documents to prove their claim of exemption on a turnover towards sales return. Hence the petitioner submitted a rectification application, under section 84 of TNVAT Act on 3.7.2015. While passing orders on the said application, with regard to 'C' form as well as the eligibility of the petitioner under sales return, the respondent without adducing appropriate reasons has stated that the judgment cited in the case reported in 103STC383 is not applicable to the case, since the facts in that case and the case of the petitioner are not similar. Further the defects pointed out by the respondent in the impugned proceedings are nothing, but ineligibility of concessional rate of tax on certain turnover due to de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
