9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 907X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch pointed out that even though the Act does not specifically provide for an opportunity of personal hearing, there is no bar for Assessing Officers to call upon the assessees to appear before them, produce documents and explain their case. The matter is remitted back to the respondent for a fresh consideration - petition allowed by way of remand. - Writ Petition No.30642 of 2017 & WMP.No.33512 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 27-11-2017 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Rajkumar For Respondent : Mr.K.Venkatesh, GA ORDER Mr.K.Venkatesh, learned Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondent. Heard both. In view of the glaring legal error committed in passing the impugned order, the writ petition itself is tak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be agitated before the Assessing Officer. 4. In the said writ petition, the petitioner contended that they did not have adequate opportunity to produce the documents namely purchase bills and prayed for one more opportunity to place all the materials before the Assessing Officer. Considering the submissions made, the petitioner was directed to pay 15% of the disputed tax and if the petitioner complied with the said condition, the petitioner was permitted treat the impugned order therein dated 30.7.2013 as a show cause notice and submit their objections. 5. The petitioner complied with the condition imposed in the earlier writ petition and immediately thereafter, the respondent issued the notice dated 10.2.2017 calling upon the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bviously, the respondent should have been aware of the decision of this Court on the very same issue. 8. Further, this Court, in the case of Sri. Murugan Agency Vs. CTO (FAC), Namakkal (Rural) Assessment Circle [W.P.No.28478 of 2008 dated 03.11.2017] had an occasion to consider a similar issue. The point for determination was as to whether the petitioner therein can be denied the input tax credit for the period from April 2007 onwards and as to whether the respondent therein was right in restricting it for a period of 90 days. Ultimately, it was held that the question of restricting the input tax credit for a period of 90 days is incorrect and taking note of the decision in the case of C.K.G.Agencies, this Court allowed the said writ pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the relevant assessment year 2007-08 and after adjusting the input-tax credit, it paid the tax under section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. On December 18, 2009, the respondent determined the total and taxable turnover at ₹ 57,92,100 by accepting the turnover reported by the petitioner, but took the input-tax credit for the month of March, 2008 alone. The petitioner's grievance is that the said order is contrary to the circular issued by the Commissioner dated August 29, 2007, wherein, it is clarified that if the turnover of the assessee exceeded ₹ 50,00,000 in the middle of the year, then the assessee would not be assessed at the compounded rate of tax under section 3(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said proviso has no application to the present case. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to have the benefit of input-tax credit, once the turnover exceeds ₹ 50,00,000 limit. Going by the Commissioner's clarification, the benefit of input-tax credit has to be extended to the assessee like the petitioner, the moment the petitioner's turnover exceeded ₹ 50,00,000 and that he would not eligible to be assessed under section 3(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act. It is seen that in the rectification petition filed, the petitioner pointed out to the turnover of the year crossing ₹ 50,00,000 and that the assessment made by the officer was going against the Commissioner's clarification dated August 29, 2007 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir case. Had this procedure been adopted in all probabilities, the respondent would not have passed the impugned assessment order. Thus, the legal position having been settled in the aforesaid decision in favour of the petitioner, it has to be necessarily held that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 10. The learned Government Advocate, who is seeking to sustain the impugned order, submits that if the petitioner has any grievance against the impugned order, they should have filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority and that they should not have filed a writ petition before this Court. 11. This Court is unable to accept the stand taken by the learned Government Advocate for the reason that the respondent completed the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
