9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ements are absent in the orders passed by the second respondent. Levy of interest - Held that: - It is no doubt true that the petitioner was not represented by his Counsel. If that be so, then the Revision Petitions should be dismissed for default, but the authority chose to give brief reasons for rejection. The reasons do not deal with the factual position nor deal with the contentions raised by the petitioner - the orders rejecting the Revision Petitions with regard to levy of interest is held to be a non-speaking order. Since the matter has been prolonging for a long period of time and the balance amount of interest payable is ₹ 27,14,101/-, this Court is inclined to impose some conditions on the petitioner to be entitled to one more opportunity to go before the Revisional Authority. Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - W.P. Nos. 34093 to 34102 of 2016 & WMPs 29427 to 29436 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 28-9-2016 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For Petitioner : P. Rajkumar For Respondents : K. Venkatesh ORDER Heard Mr. P. Rajkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.Venkatesh, learned Government Advocate (Taxes) appearing fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the proposal as set out in the pre-revision notices. 5.Soon after the petitioner filed Writ Petitions before this Court in W.P.Nos.13626 to 13630 of 2013, challenging the Revision of Assessment for all assessment years, only with regard to the levy of interest, as entire tax had been paid as proposed in the pre-revision notices. The said Writ Petitions were disposed of by a common order dated 26.06.2013, giving liberty to the petitioner to file Revisions before the appropriate authorities under section 54 of the Act, within a time frame, with a direction to the Revisional Authority to entertain the Revision Petitions, to be disposed of on merits. The recovery proceedings for recovering interest was directed to be kept in abeyance, for a period of 15 days to enable the petitioner to file revisions and obtain interim orders from the Revisional Authority. In terms of the directions issued, the petitioner filed Revision Applications before the first respondent on 08.07.2013, for all assessment years. In those Revision Applications, the petitioner contested the claim for interest and stated that it was not sustainable in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he TNVAT Act and therefore, there was no reason to set aside the levy of interest. 9.After elaborately, hearing the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perusing the materials placed on record, the fact that when the first respondent chose to decide the matter exparte, he would have refrained from expressing anything on the merits of the contentions raised in the Revision Petitions. Nevertheless, the first respondent has given a brief reason for rejecting both the sets of Revision Petitions. In the Petitions filed under section 84 of the TNVAT Act before the second respondent, the petitioner has raised several ground. In other words, the petitioner has pointed out the arrears in the sales figures as noted by the Enforcement Wing Officials during their inspection and it was pointed out that the sales figures adopted in the assessment orders were different from the sales figures arrived at by the Enforcement Wing Officials and the difference were pointed out in a tabulated statement. Further, it was pointed out that the total of the Taxable Turnover evidenced by the accounts of the petitioner-company is more than the Taxable Turnovers arrived at by Enforcement Wing Offici ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith mala fide intentions, then it would have been a different matter. However, there is no such findings on the aspect of delay. Therefore, the rejection of the Revision Petitions holding that the Petitions for Rectification filed under section 84 of the TNVAT Act, after a period of eleven months, cannot hardly be sustained. 12.Coming to the next set of impugned orders regarding the levy of interest, as pointed out earlier, the Court in W.P.Nos.13626 to 13630 of 2013, directed the Revision Petitions to be entertained by the concerned authority and should be disposed of on merits. It is no doubt true that the petitioner was not represented by his Counsel. If that be so, then the Revision Petitions should be dismissed for default, but the authority chose to give brief reasons for rejection. The reasons do not deal with the factual position nor deal with the contentions raised by the petitioner by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of E.I.D.PARRY (INDIA) LTD.,(supra). The facts of the case have not been taken note of. Therefore, the orders rejecting the Revision Petitions with regard to levy of interest is held to be a non-speaking order. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
