9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 1155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t bound by the instructions or direction of the higher authorities - the first respondent failed to appreciate that throughout the State of Tamil Nadu, the goods, namely, corrugated sheet and steel structures, are assessed and levied tax at 5% only as declared goods falling under Entry 41 of the First Schedule to the TNVAT Act read with Section 14 of CST Act - since the first respondent failed to grant an opportunity of hearing before enhancing the turnover from 6,32,89,746/- to 7,38,45,800/- without notice to the petitioner, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside - petition allowed - matter on remand. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the same is applicable to the facts of the present case. But it is completely overlooked by the respondent. That apart, when the petitioner was availing cenvat credit only on HR coils, CR coils, Channel, MS Angle, Square round tubes, Anchor bolt, Nut and not otherwise, the first respondent ought not to have failed to see that the sale invoices of the seller of the goods as well as the sale invoices of the petitioner only charges VAT at 4% and not as alleged by the respondents. In any event, such reasoning was not proposed either in the Notice dated 11.03.2013 or 13.12.2013 by the erstwhile Assistant Commissioner, Velachery Assessment circle, that apart, as between the statutory provisions and departmental instructions, always the statuto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ason that a copy of sale invoice was not produced. Once again, the petitioner filed a detailed objections dated 07.03.2014 reiterating that the earlier objections 13.05.2013 also be taken into account. However, in the objections dated 07.03.2014, the petitioner also submitted copies of the sale invoices. In the said objections, it was stated that in view of Advance Ruling issued under Section 48A of the Act dated 05.06.2013 for the very same commodity, notices issued by the respondent is liable to be dropped. 5. It may be mentioned herein that the first respondent has forwarded the deviation report to the second respondent reiterating that in view of Advance Ruling dated 05.06.2013, the case of the petitioner had to be dropped, however, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
