9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 846X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents. It is the case of the petitioner that his reply dated 28.06.2016 to the pre-revision notice dated 28.03.2016 was not duly considered by the respondents in the impugned assessment order. According to him, he has reported all the sales and purchases done by him as works contractor to the respondent. It is also the case of the petitioner that he had submitted trading, profit and loss account pertaining to his business to the respondent. According to him, there is no scope for revision of assessment under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006. It is also the case of the petitioner that the deemed sale value of transfer of property reported by him to the respondent for the works contract at 42% is the correct figure, but witho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner to the respondent, which discloses that only 42% was the deemed sale value for the transfer of goods and remaining expenses were incurred towards labour and other allied charges. Even though, the said trading, profit and loss account was submitted by the petitioner, in the assessment impugned order, there is no discussion about the same. But instead the respondent has without any basis has followed the formula as per Rule 8(5) of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rule, 2007. When the assessee has submitted the trading, profit and loss account, it is the bounden duty of the respondent to verify whether the said profit and loss account is a genuine one or not. If found genuine, the respondent will have to accept the contends of the said p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Applying the ratio laid down in the aforesaid Division Bench judgment, the respondent cannot reverse the input tax credit in the hands of the petitioner, who is a purchasing dealer for non reporting of sales by the other and seller. All these factors were not considered in the impugned assessment order, even though, the same was raised as objection by the petitioner in his detailed reply dated 28.06.2016 sent to the respondent. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, the respondent has violated the principles of natural justice by not considering the objection raised by the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law. 8.Accordingly, the impugned assessment order dated 23.09.2016 passed in TIN No.33466164334/2012-13 is hereby ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
