9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1763X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the matter is remitted back to the file of the respondent for fresh disposal - petition allowed by way of remand. - W.P.(MD)Nos.16901 & 16902 of 2017 And W.M.P.(MD)Nos.13468 & 13469 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 7-9-2017 - Mr. Justice T. Raja For the Petitioner : Mr.A.Chandrasekaran For the Respondents : Mr.R.Karthikeyan Additional Government Pleader (In both Writ Petitions) ORDER *********** By consent of both parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2.The present writ petitions are directed against the impugned orders passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Ramanathapuram, in TIN No.33245445200/2014-2015 and TIN No. 33245445200/2015-2016 dated 07.07.2017, on various grounds. 3.The petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t herein to levy tax and penalty thereon by re-opening the petitioner's completed assessment for the year 2014-2015. 5.On the basis of the proposals sent by the Enforcement Wing Officers, the respondent issued revision notices dated 15.03.2017, proposing to levy certain taxes on the estimated sales suppression arrived at by the inspecting officers. The respondent further proposed to levy penalty at 150% under Section 27(3)(ii) and 50% under Section 27(4)(1) of the TNVAT Act for the assessment year 2014-2015 and 150% under Section 27(3) and 300% under Section 27(4) of the TNVAT Act for the assessment year 2015-2016. The petitioner on receipt of the said notices submitted detailed reply on 20.04.2017, explaining that there were no supp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re called for, if any, to the proposals. On receipt of the said notices, the petitioner also submitted his objections on 20.04.2017. The respondent had also mentioned clearly in the impugned orders that he had carefully examined and recorded that the petitioner had already admitted the facts before the Enforcement Wing Officers, at the time of verification, ie., on 21.10.2016. Therefore, since the petitioner had already admitted before the enquiry officer, the objections filed thereafter, are not acceptable and only on that basis the revised assessment orders for the assessment years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 have been passed. 9.But, this Court is unable to countenance either of the contentions made by the petitioner in respect of the impu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
