9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 299X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o whether the case as projected by the petitioner was correct, what would be the effect of the break up details furnished by the petitioner along with their letter on 27.01.2013, which were in fact called for by the respondent in the notice dated 12.03.2015 - Petition allowed by way remand. - W.P.Nos.26119 to 26127 of 2016 & W.M.P.Nos.22382 to 22390 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 27-7-2016 - MR. T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. For The Petitioner : Mr.R.Kumar For The Respondent : Mr.S.Manokaran Sundaram Addl.Govt.Pleader COMMON ORDER Heard Mr.R.Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Manokaran Sundaram, learned Additional Government Pleader accepting notice on behalf of the respondents and with the consent of learned co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner submitted their objections to the nine notices on 31.3.2015. In the objections, after referring to the decision of this Court, in the case of SRI VINAYAGA AGENCIES v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) [(2013) 60 VST 283], the petitioner stated that selling dealers might have paid the tax well in advance and merely because there are some differences on the reported turnover of the selling dealers and purchases reported by the petitioner, it cannot be construed that the selling dealers have not paid tax to the Department. Reliance was also placed on the same decision ( SRI VINAYAGA AGENCIES) , for the contention that the respondent is not empowered to revise the Input Tax Credit availed, on a plea that the selling dealer has not paid the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 17.07.2013] and passed the impugned orders. The respondent ought to have considered the petitioner's objections and examined as to whether the case as projected by the petitioner was correct, what would be the effect of the break up details furnished by the petitioner along with their letter on 27.01.2013, which were in fact called for by the respondent in the notice dated 12.03.2015. Thus, the respondent has misdirected himself and the manner in which the impugned assessment orders have been passed, are untenable. 8.In the light of the above, the Writ Petitions are allowed, the impugned orders are quashed and the respondent is directed to take into consideration the objections given by the petitioner dated 31.03.2015, the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
