9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 455X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er : Mr.V.Srikanth For the Respondents : Mr.V.Haribabu Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) ORDER Mr.V.Srikanth, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner and Mr.V.Haribabu, learned 'Additional Government Pleader' ['AGP' for brevity] on behalf of both the official respondents are before this Court. 2. With consent of learned counsel on both sides, the main writ petition is taken up and is being disposed of. 3.Impugned order in the instant writ petition, is a Revised Assessment order made by the 2nd respondent under Section 27 of the 'Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (Tamil Nadu Act 32 of 2006)' ['TNVAT Act' for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner is same i.e., M/s.Daksh Agencies) and the case on hand mirror each other. 8. Therefore, the question of service of Revisional notice preceding the impugned order is left open as it is not necessary to go into it. Owing to the undisputed position that facts in instant case and the aforesaid earlier order are identical or in other words, the facts mirror each other, instant case can be disposed of without going into the factual disputation qua service of revisional notice. 9. For the sake of convenience, clarity and ease of reference, Paragraphs 3 to 12 of the aforementioned earlier order are extracted and reproduced infra: '3. Subject matter of this writ petition pertains to ' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 8. While it is the case of the writ petitioner that first of the SCNs dated 30.11.2016 was not served on the writ petitioner, it is fairly submitted by writ petitioner's counsel that second SCN dated 01.10.2018 was served on the writ petitioner, but it was served as part of a batch pertaining to certain writ petitions which are pending and hence, the writ petitioner could not respond to the second SCN. This explanation is hardly acceptable. However, without expressing any opinion on the assessee not responding to the SCN, this Court proposes to remit this matter back to the second respondent for a different reason. That different reason is that impugned order has been made without adhering to what has now come to st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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.' '56. The procedure adopted under the Maharastra VAT Act appears to be a more reasonable procedure, the Rules have been so designed to constitute independent authorities, who will in exercise jurisdiction to dispose of the objections etc. However, this Court cannot legislate nor direct the 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 dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel for revenue submitted that the writ petitioner has not responded to the second SCN and in the absence of any response from the writ petitioner, plea of adherence to JKM Graphics principle becomes a very weak submission. 10. Be that as it may, this Court, as alluded to supra, has left open the question of the writ petitioner not responding to the second SCN and has made it clear that this Court is remitting the matter back to the second respondent on the sole ground of not adhering to JKM Graphics principle. 11. Though some other grounds including a ground to the effect that SCN has been issued by the first respondent and the impugned order has been made by the second respondent have been rai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
