9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 244X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order passed in the earlier round of litigation as besides being in violation of M/S. JKM GRAPHICS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [ 2017 (3) TMI 536 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]. Petition disposed off. - W.P.No.16242 of 2019 And W.M.P.No.15944 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 20-6-2019 - Mr. Justice M. Sundar For the Petitioner : Mr.Adithya Reddy For the Respondent : Mr.M.Hariharan Additional Government Pleader ORDER Mr.Adithya Reddy, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner is before this Court. Mr.Hariharan, learned 'Additional Government Pleader' ('AGP' for brevity) accepts notice on behalf of sole respondent. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gle Judge of this Court on 24.08.2017. Relevant and operative portions of the order dated 24.08.2017 in the earlier round of litigation i.e., W.P.No.24.08.2017, reads as follows: '4. Considering the nature of objections raised by the petitioner, this Court grants an opportunity to the petitioner to file a petition under Section 84 of TNVAT Act, within a period of one weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the petitioner, the respondent shall consider the same and pass an order on merits and in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the petitioner. Till such an or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s: 'On verification of the returns filed by them for the year 2015-16, it is noticed that the dealer have effected purchases of ₹ 19,32,968/- and paid the tax of ₹ 1,01,835/- for the assessment year 2015-16, which is ascertained from the inter-net website certain purchases details taken from other dealer Annexure-II, for the year 2015-16. The dealer had not reported enure purchases in their monthly returns. The purchase omissions noticed as below.' 6. Thereafter taking this Court through the earlier order dated 13.06.2017 and the impugned order dated 07.06.2018, learned counsel also pointed out that first page in the aforesaid two orders are virtually adverbatim the same. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... State to legislate in a particular passion and it is for the state to bring about and appropriate rules and set procedures so that when discrepancy is noted while comparing the return with that of the figures available with the Department in their web portal, there should be an exercise carried out by the department within its level before calling upon the dealer to show cause. This can be achieved only if there is a centralised mechanism and if the present practice is allowed to prevail, it would only result in multiplicity of proceedings with more number of cases pending before the Courts and Appellate forums, thus jeopardizing the interest of revenue. Therefore, it is high time the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h shall be completed within a period of three months; d) Assessment made afresh shall be communicated to the writ petitioner under due acknowledgement in a manner known to law within seven working day from the date of assessment afresh; e) Notwithstanding the aforesaid directions, it is made clear that if writ petitioner chooses to file a contempt petition, alleging violation of earlier order of this Court dated 24.08.2017 in W.P.No.20738 of 2017, this order will not impede such a course being adopted by the writ petitioner. 11. This writ petition is disposed of on above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. - - TaxTMI - TMITa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
