9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urns and the same has been accepted by the second respondent under Section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. According to the petitioner, the second respondent proposed to revise the assessment under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, 2006, as per the pre-revision notice dated 14.10.2015. According to the petitioner, for the fault of the other end seller for non-reporting of sales to the respondents, the petitioner who is a purchaser cannot be made liable to pay tax. It is their case that all the purchases effected by them have been reported to the second respondent and there is no suppression. According to the petitioner, without issuing any notice, the impugned assessment order has been passed. Challenging the same, the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; and therefore this Writ Petition is not maintainable. Further, it is his case that based on the details and vouchers submitted by the petitioner to the respondents, tax was also reduced under the impugned assessment order. Hence, there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Discussion:- 6.It is an undisputed fact that the main reason for revision of assessment under Section 27 of the 'Act' by the respondents are that the other end seller has not reported to the respondents the sales made to the petitioner. It is seen from the records that the purchases made by the petitioner from the other end seller have been duly reported to the second respondent by the petitioner without any suppression. That being the case, the Ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... officer which is prima facie against the principle of law..." 7.Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of the Hon'ble Division Bench Judgement of this Court in the case of G.V.Cotton Mills (P) Limited Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (CT) in W.A.Nos.234 to 240 of 2015, dated 16.03.2018, where in it has been held that even if the assessee does not ask for a personal hearing, it is mandatory for the assessing officer to grant personal hearing to the dealer/assessee. 8.For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the respondents have violated the principles of natural justice. 9.In the result, the impugned assessment order passed by the second respondent in TIN No.33845044357/2012-13, da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
