9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1020X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se notice issued by the DRI dated 22.06.2016, can ipso facto be the basis for demand of sales tax. It is well open to the respondent to rely upon such material based on information received from the DRI. What is required to be done is to conduct independent enquiry for which the petitioner should be given opportunity of personal hearing. This can be done only after the DRI completes the adjudication of the show cause notice dated 22.06.2016, as all documents are in the custody of the DRI. Therefore, the respondent has to necessarily await the adjudication of the case by the DRI or the Customs Officials with regard to the allegation of sales suppression/mis-declaration of value. The respondent is directed to furnish all the details in res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation of the check post movements taken from the website it was alleged that the petitioner has not reported certain interstate sales in the monthly returns and therefore, there was a proposal to demand tax on such transaction and also to levy penalty under Section 27(4)(ii) of the TNVAT Act. (iii) On information received from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, it came to light that the petitioner was liable to pay customs duty to the tune of ₹ 8 Crores and in the order passed by the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate EO-II, Egmore, Chennai 8 in Crl MP No.3658/13 in RR No.97/13 dated 20.12.2013, it is declared that the petitioner's turnover is ₹ 44.65 Crores through 169 consignments and customers duty on that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would be not in position to know as to what is the allegation against them and therefore, a request was made to furnish the copy of report dated 12.08.2014. Further without prejudice to such report, it was stated that in so far as stock seized by the Customs Authority is concerned, there was no notice or any order received from the Office of the Customs Authorities till the issuance of the show cause notice by the respondent dated 15.09.2014, and that the seized items have been directed to be released by this Court in an order passed in a writ petition. 4.The respondent appears to have issued two other notices for which replies were sent by the petitioner on the same lines explaining about the seizures that have been made etc., and poi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uments were received from the DRI, Chennai. 6.Notices dated 06.04.2016 and 31.05.2016 were issued by the respondent giving 15 days time to file objection, which notices appear to have been returned with an endorsement Unclaimed . Further the respondent pointed out that enquiry with the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence revealed that show cause notice dated 22.06.2016, was issued and xerox copies of the records seized could be obtained by the petitioner on request. The petitioner was directed to produce the records. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 13.03.2017 requesting for extension of time by 15 days and the respondent, after waiting for the said period, has completed the assessment and confirmed the proposal and made t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.2017, given by the petitioner requesting for 15 days time to reply to the notice dated 15.02.2017 on the health ground and even after granting reasonable time, the petitioner did not submit their objections. Therefore, the impugned assessment order has been passed. 10.After hearing the parties elaborately and perusing the materials placed on record including the counter affidavit filed by the respondent and the typed set of papers filed by the respondent, the following conclusion is arrived: (i) So far as the two grounds on which the assessments have been revised viz., with regard to mismatch of details culled out from the official website and the allegation of sales suppression based on check post entires once again culled out fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dered view, the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the DRI in the bail petition nor the averments which are set out in the show cause notice issued by the DRI dated 22.06.2016, can ipso facto be the basis for demand of sales tax. It is well open to the respondent to rely upon such material based on information received from the DRI. What is required to be done is to conduct independent enquiry for which the petitioner should be given opportunity of personal hearing. This can be done only after the DRI completes the adjudication of the show cause notice dated 22.06.2016, as all documents are in the custody of the DRI. Therefore, the respondent has to necessarily await the adjudication of the case by the DRI or the Customs Officials ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
