9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dinate delay in challenging the impugned order, this Court would have been well justified to dismiss the writ petition at this stage. However, considering the fact that interests of the Revenue are also involved and that the petitioner should not be left without any remedy, especially in the light of the fact that the petitioner alleges that they have not been heard in person, this Court directs the petitioner to pay 15% of tax within six weeks and if tax paid within the stipulated time the petitioner will be entitled to treat the impugned proceedings as a show cause notice and submit their objections within a period of two weeks therefrom. On such payment, the demand of remaining amount towards penalty, etc., shall remain stayed and the at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .Sky Vision, Vikas Colony at Yanam. The Inspecting Team also recovered three invoices from the dealer for a total value of ₹ 1,29,00,000/-. The allegation against the petitioner is that two invoices, out of three, which were seized, contained the details of sale made to a dealer in the Union Territory of Puducherry and the dealer concerned had treated it as an inter-state sale purposely to charge and remit tax at a lower rate in order to defraud the Revenue. In respect of the third invoice, it was found that it could be claimed to be an inter-state sale, subject to production of C-Forms. 4. Thus, the Inspecting Team was of the prima facie opinion that the very act of treating an intra-state sale as an inter-state sale is a clear at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d penalty on or before 31.12.2014. Since the petitioner did not pay tax and penalty within the time stipulated, the demand of tax and penalty was confirmed and the second respondent passed the impugned order. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in terms of Section 24(3) of the PVAT Act, the second respondent ought to have heard the petitioner before imposing penalty. That apart, no personal hearing was provided to the petitioner. In support of his contention, reliance is placed upon the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. A.N.S.Gupta Sons [reported in (2011) 38 VST 45] wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench, while considering the scope of Section 22(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... involved and that the petitioner should not be left without any remedy, especially in the light of the fact that the petitioner alleges that they have not been heard in person, this Court passes the following order : (i) The petitioner is directed to pay 15% of the tax as quantified in the impugned order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (ii) If the petitioner pays 15% of the tax quantified, then the petitioner will be entitled to treat the impugned proceedings as a show cause notice and submit their objections within a period of two weeks therefrom. On such payment, the demand of remaining amount towards penalty, etc., shall remain stayed and the attachment on the bank accounts of the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
