9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 749X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent has passed the impugned order giving reasons which were not the basis on which show cause notice was issued. Hence, this amounts to clear violation of principles of natural justice. That apart, the respondent has not considered the specific case of the petitioner that some of their sellers have filed monthly VAT returns along with Annexure-II manually and others have filed electronically. The petitioners had further stated that on their own volition, they made verification and it was found that the alleged difference in tax was reduced. This aspect of the matter was also not considered by the respondent. - the finding recorded by the respondent with regard to the difference in claim of ITC set aside - remanded back for passing spea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ement Wing, the respondent issued notices to the petitioner for all the six assessment years, all dated, 21.04.2014. Though in the notices, various other issues were pointed out as discrepancies, in these cases we are not concerned with those issues, except with regard to the issue pertaining to the difference between the input tax credit claim and the tax paid by the petitioner's seller. The quantum of such difference differed in each of the assessment year. On receipt of these notices, the petitioner submitted individual representations pointing out that certain issues which were stated to be defects have been rectified and with regard to the difference in between the input tax credit claim and tax paid by the petitioner's sellers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the year 2010-11 is not correct. The website statement for the year 2010-11 shows that there are 153 sellers. With great difficulty in most of the cases they collected Annexures II filed by their sellers and submitted to the Department for verification. 5. After mentioning the above, the petitioner stated that so far as the year 2010-11 is concerned, the difference has been reduced to ₹ 8,62,458/- from ₹ 28,98,817/-. Similar replies were given by the petitioners for other years as well. The petitioner placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the Case of Altaf Shoes (P) Ltd vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT) reported in [2012] 50 VST 179 (Mad). In the said representation, the petitioner also stated that they are making all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt in the case of M/s.Sujana Towers Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner in W.P.No.1481/2014 dated 10.06.2014. 7. In my view, the decision made in the case of Sujana Towers has absolutely no applicability to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Therefore, the reliance placed on the said decision is incorrect. So, with regard to the averment that the proof for movement of goods has not been produced, it has to be pointed out that this was never the stand of the department in the show cause notice. At no point of time, the petitioner was called upon to produce any documents to prove the movement of goods. Therefore, the respondent has passed the impugned order giving reasons which were not the basis on which show cause notice was is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
