9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nu For the Petitioner : Mr.S.Karunakar For the Respondent : Mr.R.Murugan, Additional Government Pleader ORDER This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the revised assessment order, dated 27.03.2018, passed by the respondent for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. He has been regularly filing returns. While so, based on the inspection conducted on 29.07.2015, the respondent issued a show cause notice, dated 02.02.2018, pointing out certain discrepancies in the profit and loss account. On 16.02.2018, the petitioner has given a letter, seeking time till 15.04.2018 to verify the records and to file his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me. 5. It is also seen that the respondent has simply confirmed the proposal, by the impugned order dated 27.03.2018, stating as follows: As in reference 1st cited, notice was issued to the dealer calling for objection if any to the proposal. The dealer requested personal hearing in reference 2nd cited. As per their request, personal hearing was granted. But the dealer failed to attend even though sufficient time has been granted. Hence, I confirm the proposal and revise the order accordingly for the year 2011-12. 6. It clearly shows that the first respondent, without independent application of his mind, solely guided by external factors and in particular, the VAT Audit report, has passed the impugned order. 7. In the decisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dealer, or rejecting it. However, this basic principle, as to how the assessment has to be made, has not been followed in the instant cases, and since the assessment has been made by the respondent / Assessing Officer, blindly accepting the proposal sent by the Deputy Commissioner (CT Enforcement South, the impugned orders have to be held to be not sustainable, calling for interference. 9. The above decisions are squarely applicable to the facts of this case. In this case, admittedly, the petitioner has not submitted his objections. Even then, the respondent ought to have independently considered the proposals and justified the same. But, the respondent, in contravention of the said decisions cited supra, has passed the impugned order. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
