9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its Director Mahabir Prasad Periwal, challenging the seven assessment orders dated 29.05.2015 passed by the Assistant Commissioner(CT), Peddunaickenpet Assessment Circle, with respect to assessment years 2007-08 to 2013-14 respectively. 3.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the petitioner Company filed their monthly returns both under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and CST Act, 1956 for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2013-14, disclosing all their purchases, sales including consignment transfer made during the relevant year, it goes without saying that as per Section 22(2) read with its proviso, the original assessment orders are deemed to have been passed based on the monthly returns. When the matte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respective assessment years. Emphasizing more on the defects raised by the respondent in the respective notices dated 27.01.2015, that the sellers have not reported the corresponding sales in annexure II in respect of the relevant assessment year, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that when a specific letter was addressed to the respondent requesting furnishing of details with regard to the names and addresses of the sellers who have not reported the corresponding sales in Annexure II of the respective assessment years, till date, the Assessing Officer has not come forward to accede to the said request and hence, without furnishing the names of the sellers, who, according to the respondent have not reported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment year, it was noticed that the sellers have not reported the corresponding sales in annexure II in respect of the relevant assessment year, in all fairness, the details sought viz., the particulars regarding the names and address of the sellers and the purchase particulars could have been given to the petitioner to give a quietus to the issue. As the same has not been done, the impugned orders, are liable to be quashed. 3.5 Further, the learned counsel submitted that even if the petitioner goes before the appellate authority, he will be handicapped to assail the infirmities committed by the Assessing Officer for the reason the particulars with regard to the sellers have not been furnished. That apart, it may not be possible f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uding the sales effected by the sellers. 5. But, this Court, finds some difficulty to agree with the said contention for the reason that the notices dated 27.01.2015 issued by the respondent which are proceeding on the basis that on cross verification of the buyer and seller as per the respective Annexure No.I, it was noticed that the sellers have not reported the corresponding sales in the respective Annexure No.II, shows that the names of the sellers have been found by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, when the respondent was definite on the defect that has been put against the petitioner, in all fairness, it is for them to furnish all the details before passing the final orders. 6. In view of the above, this Court, without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
