9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 8X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the respondent for re-consideration - petition allowed by way of remand. - WP.Nos.40448 & 40449/2016 & WMP.Nos.34516 & 34517/2016 - - - Dated:- 17-11-2016 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Mr.V.Srikanth For the Respondent : Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, AGP [T] ORDER Heard Mr.V.Srikanth, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader [Taxes] accepting notice on behalf of the respondent and with the consent on either side, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2 The petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 [TNVAT Act] and is engaged in the business of supply of food and drinks ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urns ; but have been filing manual returns and certain letters to establish the same, were produced before the then Assessing Officer. Apart from that, the letter given by M/s.Super Flames dated 02.04.2012, certifying the stand taken by the petitioner was submitted to the then Assessing Officer and it appears that the then Assessing Officer was satisfied with the petitioner's explanation as no further orders were passed pursuant to the notices dated 09.03.2012. However, after the present Assessing Officer took charge, he had issued notices dated 29.02.2016 to the petitioner, stating that the transactions done by the petitioner for the relevant period with M/s.Super Flames, is with an unregistered dealer and not entitled to the Input Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lf would have been avoided. One more exercise could have been done by the respondent is by calling for necessary particulars from the Assessing Officer of M/s.Super Flames who is also a registered dealer in Valluvarkottam Assessment Circle. This could have very well solved the issues which arose for consideration. 5 That apart, the question would be as to why the then Assessing Officer did not proceed further pursuant to the notices dated 09.03.2012. Since no action was taken pursuant to the notice dated 09.03.2012, it is prima facie clear that the then Assessing Officer was satisfied with the petitioner's explanation dated 25.03.2012 supported by the letter given by M/s.Super Flames dated 02.04.2012. Thus, the respondent should obje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
