9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 313X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r by order dated 14.06.2016 resulting in balance of tax due of ₹ 3,95,18,210/- - the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Writ Petition No.2079 of 2017, W.M.P.No.2051 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 3-7-2017 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. S. Raveekumar For the Respondent : Mr. K. Venkatesh ORDER Heard. Mr.S.Raveekumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Venkatesh, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. With the consent of either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. 2.The petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act (TNVAT Act) and the Central Sales ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een given. The respondent is directed to redo the assessment only in respect of the issues, which were not considered and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 3. W.P.Nos.30990 to 30992 of 2016 was disposed of by this Court by a separate order dated 09.11.2016 by issuing the following directions: 8.Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a petition under Section 84 of the State Act within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, the respondent shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing, consider the issues pointed out by the petitioner in an effective manner by providing all the details, which were sought for and pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Further, it is submitted that the respondent failed to adhere to the directions issued by this Court in the case of I.T.W. Signode India Limited vs. State of Jharkhand and others reported in (2007) 8 VST 182. Further, it is submitted that the deduction of ₹ 26,56,749/- has been made alleging mismatch between the Annexure I and II of the other end dealer and this has been held to be unsustainable by this Court in several decisions. Further, it is submitted that if the vendor has not remitted tax, the Department has to invoke Section 27 of the TNVAT Act and proceed against the vendor and not to penalize the petitioner purchaser. In support of such contention, reliance was placed on the decision in the case Althaf Shoes (P) Ltd., vs. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consideration of the Assessing Officer. 7. As pointed out earlier, the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to putforth their objections before the impugned order was passed. Furthermore, since this Court has remanded the matter for fresh consideration in the above referred decisions, the present order also requires re-consideration as it will be subject to whatever orders that may be passed pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.30986 of 2016 dated 09.11.2016 and W.P.Nos.30990 to 30992 of 2016 dated 09.11.2016. 8. For all the above reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration. The respondent shall issue fresh sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
