9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1008X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n arises under 'Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (Tamil Nadu Act 32 of 2006)' ('TNVAT Act' for brevity). 4. An 'order dated 05.06.2017 bearing Reference TIN 33066204809/2014-15' (hereinafter referred to 'impugned order-I' for brevity) has been called in question in the instant writ petition. To be noted, impugned order-I is a revised assessment order under TNVAT Act. Impugned order-I was made more than two years ago and impugned order-I was admittedly served on writ petitioner more than two years ago. 5. The case file placed before this Court reveals that instant writ petition has been presented in this Court on 01.07.2019. Therefore, impugned order-I made and served on writ petitioner in June of 2017 h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , but the documents have not been considered. 9. With regard to the second point, it was submitted that personal hearing ought to have been granted before passing of the impugned order. 10. In support of contentions of learned counsel for writ petitioner, an order dated 12.06.2019 made by this Court in W.P.Nos.4554 of 2019 etc., in Venkateswara Constructions Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and an earlier order dated 08.12.2014 made by this Court in W.P.No.31794 of 2014 in Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT) Valluvarkottam Assessment Circle were pressed into service. 11. Learned Revenue counsel, in response to the submissions made by learned counsel for writ petitioner, pointed out that the aforesaid case laws do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion at source was involved and that was a case where the writ petitioner specifically sought for personal hearing, but the same was not granted. This Court is inclined to accept the submission as a case law is on the facts and circumstances of that particular case and in the light of issue being production of certificates pertaining to tax deduction at source and in the light of there not having been latches on the part of the writ petitioner in approaching this Court, the order was passed that too fixing personal hearing on a mutually agreeable date and time. Likewise, a perusal of the Dharani Sugars case also reveals that it is a case where the Assessing Officer in the impugned order has referred to objections made by writ petitioner, whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce between conclusions in two cases.' 18. Therefore, an order is rendered on the facts and circumstances of that particular case. Now that the aforesaid case laws are distinguishable, it is also necessary to make a reference to the alternate remedy aspect to the matter. 19. In the instant case, the impugned order itself makes it clear that an appeal lies to the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, but writ petitioner has not chosen to file a statutory appeal. 20. There is no disputation before this Court that a statutory appeal lies to jurisdictional Appellate Deputy Commissioner under Section 51 of TNVAT Act. 21. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for Revenue, wri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
