9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent cannot sustain the scrutiny of this Court, since the same was not by considering the materials already placed on record which were examined by the Assessing Officer. The matter is remitted to the 3rd respondent for considering the rectification petition filed by the petitioner and pass orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law - appeal allowed by way of remand. - W.P.Nos.22282 to 22288 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 19-9-2018 - Mr. K. Ravichandrabaabu J. For the Petitioner : Ms.Lakshmi Sriram For the Respondents : Mr.M.Hariharan Additional Government Pleader (Tax) COMMON ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved against the proceedings of the 3rd respondent informing the petitioner that their request to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act and therefore, the petitioner has not made out a case for revision of assessment under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, in the absence of any error apparent on the face of the record. 5. But, a perusal of the impugned orders would indicate otherwise that the Assessing Officer, in fact, has observed in Paragraph No.2 that the documents along with Section 84 applications were already filed by the Assessee and were already examined by the Assessing Officer. 6. Therefore, I find that the impugned orders passed by the 3rd respondent cannot sustain the scrutiny of this Court, since the same was not by considering the materials already placed on record which were examined by the Assessing Officer. Needless t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as it is for the 3rd respondent to consider and decide. The 3rd respondent shall pass such order, as directed supra, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. While hearing these Writ Petitions for admission on 30.08.2018, this Court, after finding a prima facie case, granted an interim order directing the respondents to ensure that the petitioner operates their bank accounts in respect of the sum over and above disputed tax liability of ₹ 2,91,72,585/-. Since this Court has now remitted the matter back to the 3rd respondent, in order to protect the interest of both parties, till an order is passed by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner shall maintain the balance in the bank account to the tune ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
