9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chase and claim of excess input tax credit, the same will have to be reversed - admittedly, no reply was sent by the petitioner to the pre-revision notice issued by the second respondent on 03.01.2019 proposing the revision of assessment for the assessment year 2014-15. In the instant case, neither personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner nor an independent enquiry was held by cross verifying the sales effected by the other end seller to the purchaser based on which a pre-revision notice dated 03.01.2019 was sent by the second respondent proposing to revise the assessment of the petitioner for the assessment year 2014-15. From the above, it is clear that the second respondent has violated the principles of natural justice and has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 006. 4. According to the petitioner, since the said defence is due to the inadvertent omission in reporting of purchase, the petitioner paid the entire tax of ₹ 14,428/- and penalty of ₹ 7,214/- totalling a sum of ₹ 21,642/- by cheque on 09.02.2017. It is the case of the petitioner that after a lapse of two years, the second respondent once again issued another notice dated 03.01.2019, based on the inspection carried out by the Enforcement Wing Officials of the respondent on 19.09.2016 alleging once again, that there was suppression of purchases made by the petitioner in its earlier returns filed for the Assessment Year 2014-15 and alleging that the other end seller has also not reported the sales effected t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed the impugned assessment order by total non-application of mind, the instant writ petition has been filed. 7. Heard Mr.B.Rooban, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Jeyakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 8. This Court has perused and examined the impugned Assessment Order. The second respondent proposed to revise the assessment of the petitioner for the Assessment year 2014-15 based on an inspection carried out by their Enforcement Wing officials on 19.09.2016, wherein according to the second respondent, it was found that the petitioner has suppressed purchases effected from the other end seller and had claimed excess input tax credit. According to the seco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er and that they are acceptable except in the following cases. But, in fact, no reply was sent by the petitioner to the pre-revision notice dated 03.01.2019. It is settled law that the Assessment Officer, namely, the second respondent will have to independently assess the liability of the petitioner to the payment of tax as well as penalty in the revision of assessment proceedings and he cannot personally accept the web report of the department without holding a separate enquiry and without cross verifying the sales from the other end sellers. 12. In the instant case, neither personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner nor an independent enquiry was held by cross verifying the sales effected by the other end seller to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
