9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1028X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 7(9) r/w.Section 19(11) of the TNVAT Act. What has happened in the present case is that the respondent has taken total purchase from 2010-11 to 2015-16 and assessed the petitioner to tax in a single Assessment year 2015-16. Therefore, to that effect, there is an error in the Assessment Order. Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner. - WP No.7552 of 2017 WMP No.8234 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 31-10-2017 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For Petitioner : Mr. P. Rajkumar For Respondent : Mrs. Narmadha Sampath ORDER Heard Mr.P.Rajkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.Narmadha Sampath, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. With consent on either side, the writ petition its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... collected tax on the sales, which is in violation of Section 3(4)(a) of the TNVAT Act. 5. The inspection report was forwarded to the Assessing Officer who had issued revision notice dated 31.10.2016, furnishing all the relevant details and stating that the petitioner has violated the provisions of Section 3(4) of the TNVAT Act from the year 2014-15 onwards and they were not eligible to file monthly returns in Form K for the said Assessment years 2010-11 to 2015-16 upto 29.12.2015. There was a deficit of stock and owing to all these discrepancies, the respondent proposed to revise the petitioner's total and taxable turnover, apart from proposing to impose penalty. The petitioner submitted their objections dated 28.11.2016 alleging th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the assessment for the year 2010-11 to 2015-16 are not made in a composite manner and the present assessment is exclusively made for the Assessment year 2015-16. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perusing the material placed on record, two factors emerge from the impugned Assessment Order. The first one is the fact that the petitioner had filed a revised return on 21.12.2015 upto October 2015. Admittedly these revised returns were made much prior to the inspection done by the Enforcement Wing officers which was carried out in the business premises of the petitioner on 29.12.2015 and 30.12.2015. Therefore, the respondent ought to have considered the revised return for the said period. The revised return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s have been done by them for several years. If the petitioner was not entitled to file returns in Form K from 2014-15 onwards, it is a good ground for revising such assessments, provided the same is within the period of limitation. Thus, for the above reasons, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is granted one more opportunity and simultaneously, safeguarding the interest of the revenue. 8. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioner to pay 15% of the disputed tax i.e., 15% of ₹ 1,33,23,823/- within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order either in lump sum or in installments . If the petitioner complies with the condition, the petitioner will ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
