9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner - In the light of the above factual position and the documents and accounts produced by the petitioner, it is prima facie clear that there is excess entry tax to the tune of ₹ 23,04,986/- available to the credit of the petitioner as of 01.04.2013. Therefore, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - W.P.No.8832 of 2017 W.M.P.Nos.9685 to 9688 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 3-8-2017 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Mr.Palani Selvaraj For the Respondents : Mr. Kanmani Annamalai ORDER Heard Mr.Palani Selvaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kanmani Annamalai, Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. The petitioner, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the petitioner. 4. The first respondent vide notice dated 28.03.2016 stated that the petitioner has adjusted the excess entry tax. This stand taken by the first respondent was denied by the petitioner by stating that the entry tax paid in advance, i.e. a sum ₹ 23,04,986/- as on 01.04.2013, has not been adjusted towards the output tax payable. The representation/reply dated 04.04.2017 was not considered in a proper perspective but the first respondent has made a hand written endorsement on the very same letter stating that the same cannot be adjusted. The manner in which the first respondent has passed the hand written endorsement is deprecate. Not stopping with that the petitioner's bank account has been attached. 5. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt. Not only reply affidavit has been filed, statement of accounts have been produced which prima facie shows that excess entry tax is available to the credit of the petitioner. 9. During the course of arguments, the learned Additional Government Pleader admitted that excess entry tax is available and it appears that the Assessing Officer has not perused the accounts and therefore submitted that the matter may be remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration. Thus the error which has crept in appears to have been admitted by the first respondent during the course of hearing of this writ petition. 10. In the light of the above factual position and the documents and accounts produced by the petitioner, it is prima facie clea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
