9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 372X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore the Trade Marks Registry and has got sufficient proof to show that the same has been withdrawn as early as on 03.10.2013, - one more opportunity given to the petitioner to produce proof of withdrawal of application. Matter remanded for fresh consideration and the respondent directed to issue a fresh notice and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, shall re-do the assessment in accordance with law - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - W.P.No. 26494 of 2016 and WMP.No.22706 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 29-7-2016 - MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM For the Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramanathan For the Respondent : Mr.Cibhivishnu Addl. Government Pleader O R D E R Heard Mr. S. Ramanathan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act. However, in the impugned proceedings, the respondent has not specifically stated under which sub-section, the revision of assessment has been made and merely referred to Section 27 of the TNVAT Act. 4. Nevertheless on a reading of the impugned order, it is evidently clear that the revision of assessment is under Section 27(1) (b) of the Act. If that be the case, then, it has to be seen whether penalty could be levied. 5. So far as the first issue is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner in their reply to the show cause notice and during the personal hearing stated that the application filed before the Registry of Trade Marks was withdrawn but they were unable to produce the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty is set aside. 9. With regard to the other aspect, namely, that the petitioner has withdrawn the application filed before the Trade Marks Registry and has got sufficient proof to show that the same has been withdrawn as early as on 03.10.2013, this Court is inclined to give one more opportunity to the petitioner. 10. In view of the above, the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration, only with regard to whether the petitioner had been selling branded or unbranded products, and that the petitioner is directed to produce proof to show that they have withdrawn the application filed before the Trade Marks Registry. 11. Insofar as the penalty is concerned, the question of re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. 13. From the records placed before this Court, and after hearing the learned Additional Government Pleader, it is evidently, clear that assessment has to be made on the turnover of ₹ 1,63,24,728/- only and separately ₹ 1,02,00,700/- cannot be added to it, as the said figure is inclusive of the total turnover made by the petitioner during the relevant assessment year. 14. With regard to the other turnover of ₹ 1,43,71,748/-, the petitioner has to be furnished with full details so that they could be in a position to submit their objections, effectively. 15. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
