9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORDER Mr.A.N.R.Jayaprathap, learned counsel on record for sole writ petitioner is before this Court. Ms.Dhanamadhri, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of sole respondent. 2. With consent of learned counsel on both sides, main writ petition itself is taken up, heard out and is being disposed of. 3. Owing to the trajectory, which the hearing has taken today, this writ petition now turns on a very narrow compass. Therefore, short facts shorn of elaboration and details/particulars will suffice for appreciating this order and the same are as follows: a) Writ petitioner is a registered dealer on the file of respondent herein under 'Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ' for brevity) h) assailing the impugned order instant writ petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for writ petitioner submitted that there is only one ground on which impugned order is assailed. To be noted, several grounds have been raised in the affidavit filed in support of instant writ petition, but in the hearing, writ petitioner restricted his submission to one ground of attack qua impugned order. That one ground of attack turns on aforesaid first of the two replies from writ petitioner i.e., reply dated 10.04.2018, where there are seven enclosures. As already mentioned supra, seven enclosures to the reply are all annexure II of writ petitioner's sellers. The enclosures read as follows: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roblem is, such comparison has been made only with regard to one set of annexure II i.e., sale details from one of the sellers of writ petitioner has been done, whereas it has not been done so with regard to sale details i.e., annexure II of six other sellers which were enclosed to aforesaid reply dated 10.04.2018. The impugned revised assessment order does not articulate or set out that such an exercise has been carried out and there is no other material before this Court to demonstrate that it has been done with regard to six other sellers of writ petitioner. 8. In the aforesaid backdrop, learned counsel for writ petitioner pressed into service a oft-quoted judgment being JKM Graphics Solutions Private Limited Vs. Commerc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the dealer, satisfy himself that and after such verification, it prima facie appears that the returns to be revised, at that stage, the Assessing Officer would be entitled to issue a show cause notice containing full particulars and clearly stating as to what was the scope of enquiry done by him and why he is of the prima facie view that the dealer has failed to file proper returns or suppressed information. It is only then the dealer would be in a position to putforth his defence and demonstrate as to how this prima facie view is without any basis.' 10. In the light of JKM principle, this Court passes the following order: a) impugned assessment order is set aside on the touchstone of JKM principle. To be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
