9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was proposed under Section 22(5) of the TNVAT Act - Further perusal of the impugned orders would also show that the petitioner was not provided with any personal hearing. No doubt, the notices of proposal indicated that either the petitioner in person or his authorized representative is entitled for personal hearing within 15 days on receipt of the said notice. However, it is seen that the respondent has not sent any further communication indicating the date of personal hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the view that, without expressing any view on the merits of the assessment, the matter needs to be remitted back to the respondent for re-considering the matter afresh, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has also paid the required tax. Thereafter, the respondent herein issued notices of proposal to revise the assessment in respect of subject matter two assessment years, by claiming that the petitioner/Assessee has crossed ₹ 50 Lakhs ceiling of turn over in respect of those assessment years also and consequently, ought to have filed Form-I returns with Annexure-I II and payment of tax at 0.5% on ₹ 50 Lakhs and 5% beyond the turn over reaches at ₹ 50 Lakhs. Therefore, the respondent called upon the petitioner to file their objections, also by indicating levy of penalty under Section 22(5) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, Act, 2006 at 150% of the balance of tax proposed. The said notice of proposal also indicated that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y exercising his power conferred under the Statute, more particularly, after considering the objections raised by the petitioner. 7. However, the learned Government Advocate is not in a position to explain and satisfy this Court as to how the penalty under Section 27(3)(c) of the TNVAT Act, was levied on the petitioner, when the notice of proposal indicated that the same was proposed under Section 22(5) of the TNVAT Act. Further perusal of the impugned orders would also show that the petitioner was not provided with any personal hearing. No doubt, the notices of proposal indicated that either the petitioner in person or his authorized representative is entitled for personal hearing within 15 days on receipt of the said notice. However, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
