9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 423X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 and the said Writ Petition came to be dismissed on 17.12.2015 and hence this appeal. 3. The petitioner would state that it is a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act,2006 (in short 'the Act') and an assessee in the books of the third respondent and it is an importer of timber from other countries. It is the claim of the petitioner that since it is selling timber under Section 5(2) of the CST Act 56, they are not liable for taxation under the Act and the petitioner also sells the timber locally taxable @ 14.5% under the said provision. The petitioner would further state for the year 2014-2015, it imported timber from other countries valuing Rs. 1,04,37,040/ for which it had filed their returns in Form I-1 as p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner did not avail the same and as such, it is not open to them to make a complaint in that regard and would further add that the learned Judge has also found the petitioner is also having an effective alternative remedy and therefore, he has to avail the same and prays for the dismissal of this Writ Appeal confirming the order of the dismissal of the Writ Petition. 6. This Court has paid its best attention and also heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on records. 7. This Court while ordering notice to the writ appellant has permitted them to deposit 25% of the amount pertaining to the tax alone, on or before 09.11.2016. It is represented that the said order has been complied with. A perusal of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d personal hearing if required so as per Section 22(4) of the TNVAT Act, 2006. No order of revision should be made without affording an opportunity to the dealer as provided under Sections 22,25,27 of the Act." 8. In the light of the said circular coupled with the fact the order came to be passed without furnishing the copy of the web-report, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant/ petitioner need not avail alternative remedy. The third respondent has placed reliance upon the web- report, but, without furnishing a copy of the same to the appellant/petitiner and arrived at the decision and passed the impugned order and therefore, on this short ground, the impugned order which was the subject matter of the Writ Petition war ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
