9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1477X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of India. Further, when the statutory remedy available stands barred by limitation even at the time of filing of the writ petition, it would be without any justification to entertain a Writ Petition against such order. Petition dismissed. - W.P.(MD)No.3454 of 2011 and W.M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 24-11-2017 - MR. P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J. For The Petitioner : Mr. A.S.Mujibur Rahman For The Respondents : Mr. Rajakarthikeyan Additional Government Pleader ORDER This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 28.12.2010 in TIN 33345683959/2010-11, passed by the second respondent, which according to the petitioner, was received by it on 06.01.2011. 2. Learned Additional Government Pleader appeari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The sale value of deficit stock was omission sale and the same was accounted for in our books in the month of October 2010 itself. We have reported the sale of goods of deficit stock (Rs. 24,69,817/-) in the FORM I Return for October 2010 on 20.11.2010. The tax paid in advance has to be adjusted in FORM I in accordance with Rule 7(1)(a). The Stock variations were brought to accounts after the inspection or verification. Once the goods of stock found to be deficit were brought to accounts before the assessment, the question of working out the actual suppression does not arise. The Madras High Court decided the above findings in 3 MTCR 82 (Madras) Dtd. 08/09/1992 in the case of Dy. Commissioner CT Vs. Jomraj Hardwares . Hence, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ual sales effected during the month. Hence their adjustment of tax of ₹ 3,08,727/- paid due to stock deficit could not be adjusted towards the monthly tax due. In the above position, their reply is not convincing and they are directed to pay the above balance of ₹ 3,08,727/- along with the interest payable under section 42(3) of VAT Act 2006. Hence, it cannot be said that the second respondent had not considered the objections of the petitioner, amounting to violation of natural justice requiring interference of this Court in exercise of the discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, when the statutory remedy available stands barred by limitation even at the time of filing of the writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
