9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 709X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the petitioner vide letter of objection dated 12.10.2015 and 08.02.2016 including the opportunity of cross examination to the petitioner within such time as may be directed by this Court. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax (TN VAT) Act, 2006. According to the petitioner, they have filed their monthly returns for the Assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 which has also been accepted by the respondent under Section 22(2) of the TN VAT Act, 2006. But, according to the petitioner, all of a sudden, the respondent proposed to revise the assessment for the Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 and they sent a pre-revision notice dated 09.09.2015 proposing to reverse the input tax credit claimed by the petitioner on the ground that: (a) There is a difference of sales turnover between returns and Profit & Loss Account; (b) In the absence of details regarding the amount of discount received, the turn over disclosed by the petitioner in the monthly returns filed by them earlier is liable to be taxed at 4%; (c) Wrong claim of Input Tax Credit on inter state purchases; (d) Purchases ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les effected to the petitioner. It was also stated in the reply that there is no suppression by the petitioner and all purchases effected by them from the other end sellers have been fully disclosed. Insofar as the claim made by the respondent towards purchases made from RC cancelled dealers, it was clarified by the petitioner in their replies that in respect of some of the sellers, wrong TIN numbers were uploaded and the details of the wrong TIN numbers as well as the correct TIN numbers of the other end sellers were also furnished by the petitioner to the respondent in their replies. 7. Insofar as the penalty claim made by the respondent under Section 27(3), 27(4) of the TN VAT Act, 2006 is concerned, they had requested the respondent to drop the said proposal since there is no suppression or wrong availment of input tax credit by them. By Assessment order dated 30.11.2016, the respondent revised the assessment for the assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 by passing the following order: "As rightly observed by the dealers, to claim input tax credit on the purchases, the tax paid by the purchasing dealer to the selling dealer in the form of tax invoice on their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there cannot be any reversal of input tax credit and according to him, by total non-application of mind, the respondent has observed in the impugned assessment order that the petitioner has themselves accepted the wrong claim of income tax credit from the non-existent TIN numbers (i.e.) from cancelled dealers. 11. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, all the original tax invoices from the other end sellers were submitted to the respondent during the assessment proceedings and therefore, the observations in the impugned assessment order that original tax invoices were not produced has been passed by total nonapplication of mind. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner also drew the attention of this Court to the observations recorded by the respondent insofar as the discount claim is concerned. It is pertinent to point out here that even though the dealers had given above statement, they have not produced any documentary evidences in support of their contention. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, having produced the Profit and Loss Account as well as the original tax invoices, the aforesaid ob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . But according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the instant case eight months after the replies being sent by the petitioner, the assessment order has been passed by total non-application of mind. 17. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent would submit that the supporting documents were not produced by the petitioner in support of the replies sent by them on 12.10.2015 and 08.02.2016. According to the learned Additional Government Pleader, adequate opportunity was provided to the petitioner to place all documents. But despite, granting adequate opportunity, the petitioner has not made use of those opportunities. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Since all the objections raised by the petitioner in the replies dated 12.10.2015 and 08.02.2016 were duly considered by the respondent, the only remedy available to the petitioner is to file a statutory appeal under Section 51 of the TN VAT Act, 2006 and therefore, according to the learned Additional Government Pleader, the writ petition is not maintainable. Discussion: 18. This Court has perused and examined the impugned Assessment Order. In the assessment proceeding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner and sales reported by the other end sellers. Under the impugned assessment order, a sum of Rs. 29,32,343/- towards reversal of input tax credit on account of mismatch was assessed by the respondents, which according to the considered view of this Court has been assessed by total non-application of mind. Consequently, a penalty has also been assessed under Sections 27(3) and 27(4) of the TN VAT Act, 2006, which according to the considered view of this Court has also been passed by total non-application of mind. 22. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the cases of Infiniti Wholesale Limited Vs.Assistant Commissioner (CT) Koyambedu Assessment Circle, Chennai reported in (2015) 82 VST 457 as well as the judgment made in the case of JKM Graphics Solutions Private Limited vs Commercial Tax Officer, Vepery Assessment Circle, Chennai reported in (2017) 99 VST 343 (Mad) are squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case. 23. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned assessment order dated 30.11.2016 has been passed by the respondent by total non-application of mind and the same will have to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
