9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 552X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch reply, a deviation proposal is sent by the Assessing Officer. Considering the fact that the petitioner had already participated in the assessment proceedings in respect of those three assessment years, by filing their reply, I do not think that any attempt is being made by the petitioner to drag the proceedings insofar as these five assessment years are concerned, as they only want further time to file their reply, since they have to collect voluminous documents in support of their reply - such request is considered as genuine. Penalty - Section 27(3) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 - Held that:- It is true that the petitioner has not given any reply to the notice before conclusion of the assessment. But, at the same time, perusal of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the petitioner to place their objections with materials documents. He further contended that for filing such objections, the petitioner needs to collect voluminous documents and therefore, they want sufficient time for filing the reply, which the Assessing Officer failed to consider. It is his further contention that the impugned ordres also imposed penalty under Section 27(3) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, Act, 2006, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, he contended that the impugned orders violated the principles of natural justice in its strict sense. He also invited this Court's attention to the fact that the petitioner had filed their reply to the other three assessment years viz., 2009-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t years viz., 2011-2012 to 2015-2016. Apart from these five assessment years, notice of proposal were sent to the petitioner in respect of the other three assessment years viz., 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2016-2017. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had given their reply to those three assessment years and it is stated that based on such reply, a deviation proposal is sent by the Assessing Officer. Even though those three assessment years are not the subject matter in dispute before this Court, it is evident that the petitioner is genuinely attempting to take part in the assessment proceedings, by filing a reply in respect of those three assessment years with necessary documents wherever available. However, insofar as the present five ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ile imposing penalty, not only an opportunity of personal hearing should be given to the petitioner and also the orders of assessment should spelt out reasons and findings as to how the imposition of penalty and warranted in that case. In the absence of any justifiable reasons stated for imposition of penalty, this Court is of the view that the matter has to go back to the Assessing Officer to consider the issue afresh and pass fresh orders of assessment on merits and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. At the same time, considering the fact that the Assessing Officer has adjourned the proceedings for more than one occasion and also considering the fact that the tax liability is huge, this Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
