9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e rights to revise the assessment order is construed as a statutory right under TNVAT Act, the rights do not get extinguished, but the proceedings cannot be commenced after the period of limitation. This Court is left with the considered view that it would be appropriate to set aside the impugned order, but direct the respondent to redo the revised assessment based on the first revisional notice without adding any material or without adding new points to the same. Impugned order set aside - respondent is directed to redo the second revised assessment order - petition allowed by way of remand. - W.P.No.25186 of 2019 And WMP No.24759 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 29-8-2019 - Mr. Justice M. Sundar For the Petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd revisional notice dated 10.06.2019, that the writ petitioner dealer responded to the second revisional notice by way of objection dated 20.06.2019 in which limitation issue was also raised and that post second revisional notice dated 10.06.2019 and writ petitioner dealer's reply dated 20.06.2019, the respondent passed a revised assessment order dated 24.07.2019, bearing Reference No.TIN/33141240014/2010-11 ('impugned order' for brevity), which has been called in question. 4. The impugned order does not mention the provision of law under which it has been made, but at the hearing, this Court is informed that the impugned order is primarily under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 27 of TNVAT Act. In any event ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 26.09.2017 and after obtaining the reply from the writ petitioner dealer, the revised assessment order itself has been made on 03.11.2017, which is within the prescribed six years period. Furthering her submission in this direction, learned Revenue Counsel pointed out that the issue dealt with in the second revisional notice is not a new or fresh issue, but is only an issue which has already been covered by 26.09.2017 first revisional notice and therefore, it cannot be gainsaid that the impugned order is time barred. 9. This Court has carefully examined the rival submissions. The arguments advanced by learned Revenue Counsel, may have become acceptable if the first revisional noticed dated 26.09.2017 had not culminated in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment being redone on the basis of first revisional notice dated 26.09.2017 and writ petitioner dealer's reply dated 12.10.217. In other words, it is made clear that no view or opinion is expressed by this Court on the merits of the matter. b) Sole respondent is directed to redo the second revised assessment order (to be noted, impugned order is the second revised assessment order, 03.11.2017 being the first revised assessment order) on the merits of the writ petitioner dealer's reply dated 12.10.2017 to the first revisional notice dated 26.09.2017 by perambulating within the same or in other words, without adding or subtracting any new points. c) The aforesaid exercise of redoing the second revis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
