9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 508X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trix of the business. The respondent, being the State, are also interested in finding out the truth. That being the case, this Court is of the considered view that no prejudice will be caused to them if the prayer sought for in this writ petition is granted to the petitioner. This Court directs the respondent to furnish the records in support of the alleged purchases effected in the years 2009-2010, 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 respectively to the petitioner and issue summons to the third parties, who had sold the goods to the petitioner for producing the records and permit the petitioner to conduct the cross examination of the third parties and conduct a detailed inquiry before proceeding - petition disposed off. - W.P.(MD).Nos.16377 to 16379 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e his mother Rajammal and brother Mr.Ramamoorthy. Thereafter, on 24.07.2015, the petitioner's mother died and the partnership firm ceased to exist. Subsequently, the petitioner started his own new business as a Proprietary concern during the year 2016-17. 4. According to the petitioner, all of a sudden, the respondent sent notices in TIN No.33634120402/2009-2010, 2010-2011 2011-2012 respectively all dated 30.09.2015 to the petitioner in which the respondent based on an extract taken from Tvl.V.S.S.M. Distributors, Pudukottai had alleged that the petitioner herein has not reported Cigarette purchase of ₹ 24,21,686/-, ₹ 24,20,883/- and ₹ 9,90,759/- respectively and therefore, estimated the sale value of the Cigar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the petitioner is liable to pay the tax or not. According to the petitioner, summoning and cross-examining the seller of the goods, from whom the records were recovered by the respondent, are very much essential, as the petitioner is denying the alleged purchases. It is also stated by the petitioner that being a legal heir of the Proprietrix, the petitioner is not in possession of the old records. In such circumstances, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for a Mandamus to direct the respondent to furnish the records in support of the alleged purchases and also permit the petitioner to cross-examine the seller of the goods who allegedly sold the same to the petitioner's concern. 6. Heard Mr.K.Soundararajan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 06 and submitted that an Assessing Authority, an appellate or revising authority including the Appellate Tribunal or any officer of the Commercial Taxes Department, not below the rank of Assistant Commercial Tax Officer have got the powers to summon and enforce the attendance of any person and examine him on oath or affirmation and compel the production of any document. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the petitioner should be given an opportunity to examine the alleged seller, whom the petitioner does not know for the purpose of finding out the truth. 9. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent, seeks further time to get instructions as to whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
