9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 437X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent in paragraph No.8(d) was justified? - Held that: - the petitioner filed an affidavit dated 08.08.2017, withdrawing all those allegations against the second respondent. This affidavit is placed on record and the allegation against the second respondent in paragraph 8(d) stands deleted. In the light of the above, the question of transferring the case from the second respondent does not arise and the prayer sought for in the writ petition is to be rejected. Petition dismissed - prayer sought for to transfer the case is rejected - decided against petitioner. - W. P. No. 10770 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 8-8-2017 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Mr.C.Baktha Siromoni For the Respondents : Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prietor of the petitioner Mr.Rajesh Kannan is also present in Court. 5. This Court elaborately heard the submissions made on either side and also heard the petitioner for a brief period and the second respondent on what had transpired and what prompted the petitioner to make such allegation as set forth in paragraph 8(d) of the affidavit. The second respondent stated that she has recorded the telephone conversation between herself and the petitioner and has a different version to narrate. As the main dispute which has led to the present writ petition is alleging the the assessment order or notice were never received by the petitioner and no recovery could be made by way of Bank account attachment that too by the second respondent the ori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. However, in the course of examining the original files, it is seen that the assessment for the year 2013-14 under the TNVAT Act has been completed and the order was passed on 18.07.2016. For the said assessment years notice was issued on 26.02.2015, proposing to revise turnover alleging that there is purchase suppression to the extent of ₹ 78,69,746/-. The petitioner submitted his objections which had been received by the Commercial Tax Officer on 29.06.2016. Considering the objections, the Commercial Tax Officer/Assessing Officer dropped the proposal in the notice dated 29.06.2016. However, the Assessing Officer has passed an order of assessment of the petitioner's turnover alleging that there is sale suppression to the tune ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the petitioner on the allegation of sales suppression and after providing sufficient time for the petitioner to submit their objections, shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing and re-do the assessment in accordance with law. Since the taxes have already been recovered, in the event, it is held by the Assessing Officer that there are no tax dues, the amount which has been recovered from the petitioner shall be adjusted towards the tax due for the subsequent period. Writ petition is dismissed with observations/directions to the petitioner's Assessing Officer, CTO, Madipakkam Assessment Circle. No costs. 10. Since the Commercial Tax Officer, Madipakkam Assessment Circle is not a party to the proceedings. Registry is directed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
