9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 606X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eeding. Since the direction of this Court in the Writ Petitions has not been complied with, I am inclined to quash the impugned notice dated 03.06.2010 for failure to comply with the directions of this Court in W.P. Nos. 9771 9772 of 2010 thought it is really not open to the petitioner to truncate the assessment proceedings to preliminary and final order - the 2nd respondent is directed to disposed the revision petitions filed by the petitioner after hearing the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid directions of the court in W.P. Nos. 9771 9772 of 2010, on 05.05.2010. Petition disposed off. - W.P. Nos. 12507, 14363 & 14364 of 2010 And M.P. Nos. 1 to 3 of 2010 & 1,1 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 31-1-2020 - Mr. Justice C. Saravanan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manded the case back to the Assessing Officer to pass fresh orders. 6. The petitioner was thereafter issued with two Show Cause Notices dated 03.07.2009 pursuant to the aforesaid remand order dated 16.05.2005 of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) III. These Show Cause Notices were challenged by the petitioner in W.P.Nos.15320 15321 of 2009 before this Court. 7. By an order dated 06.08.2009, this Court disposed the two Writ Petitions filed by the petitioner by directing the petitioner to submit its objections to the two Show Cause Notices dated 03.07.2009 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the aforesaid order. 8. Pursuant to the above directions of this Court, the petitioner also filed a detailed obj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, only notice has been issued which has proposed for revision of assessment under Section 16(1) of the TNGST Act, to pass an order under Section 16(1) and 16(2) of the TNGST and against such order, an appeal would lies only before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT). 12. The petitioner re-presented the revision petitions once again and called upon the 2nd respondent to take up the revision petitions on merits. Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P.Nos.9771 9772 of 2010 before this Court for mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent to pass orders in the said stay applications dated 12.03.2010 filed along with revision petitions dated 12.03.2010 for the respective assessment years. 13. By an order dated 05.05.2010, this Court directed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a ground to file a Revision Petition as the provisions of the Act does not envisage filing of Revision Petitions on notices issued by an Assessing Officer. This king of frivolous petitions therefore deserves no consideration and not entertainable under Section 33 of the TNGST Act . 15. The petitioner thereafter sent another re-presentation in the form of the revision petitions, which were received by the office of the 2nd respondent on 17.05.2010. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner was issued with notice dated 03.06.2010 in bearing reference No.Rc.No.3302/2010/B1 which has been impugned in W.P.No.12507 of 2010, wherein, it has been stated as follows:- With reference to the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras dated 05.05.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en covered by purchase bills and proof for payment through Bank was also established and proof of movement of goods were also established. Therefore is is clearly established that their transactions effected from Tvl.Sivam Enterprises are genuine and that their sales are third sales in the State which is liable for exemption. Hence as suggested by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in his order the above purchase turnover since it has been accounted for in their books of accounts the same cannot be treated as Turnover escaped from assessment and the subsequent levy of Penalty under Section 16 (2) (c) and Penalty under Section 10 (3) (1) does not arise. Hence I request orders for deviating from the Proposals received from the enforce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t open to the petitioner to truncate the assessment proceedings to preliminary and final order. However, the revenue has also not filed any appeal against the order dated 05.05.2010 passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.9771 9772 of 2010, I therefore direct the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders. 23. Under these circumstances, I direct the 2nd respondent to disposed the revision petitions filed by the petitioner after hearing the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid directions of the court in W.P.Nos.9771 9772 of 2010, on 05.05.2010. 24. Since the dispute pertains to the Assessment Years 1999- 2000 and 2000-2001, the 2nd respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders on merits within a period of six weeks from the date of rece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
