9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titions and neither has the petitioner placed on record any other document in this regard post August 2017 - No counters have been filed by the respondents, despite sufficient opportunities having been extended to them. This matter cannot be adjourned but to be proceeded on the basis of the facts available on record. A perusal of the impugned orders indicates that the directions of this Court in the first round of litigation have not been taken into account in proper perspective in finalizing the assessments - This Court had specifically directed that a proper enquiry be made by the Assessing Officer, which would not only include examination of all materials procured from the Customs and the Income Tax Department, but also on an independent application of mind of those materials and a proper and effective opportunity being extended to the petitioner to substantiate his repeated contention that he is unconnected with the import transactions. The impugned assessments have not been framed in a proper manner - the impugned assessments are set aside and the Assessing Officer directed to redo the same denovo after hearing the petitioner, supplying the documents sought for by him an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Section 84 of the TNVAT Act for rectification of the errors allegedly contained in the orders of assessment. (iv) It also appears that proceedings had been initiated by the Income Tax Department on the basis of similar allegations regarding high value imports carried out by the petitioner. (v) According to the petitioner, enquiries were conducted by the Income Tax Department with the Kotak Mahindra Bank, Mylapore, Standard Chartered Bank, Rajaji Salai and DCB Bank, Broadway, when it came to light that current accounts had been opened in the name of the petitioner utilising its TIN and PAN numbers and transactions were carried out through those accounts. (vi) At para 6 of the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, the petitioner states that the Income Tax Department has exonorated the petitioner in the light of the enquiry conducted by it and since, according to him, the bank accounts as aforesaid, did not relate to the petitioner at all. (vii) The Petitioner thus filed application in terms of Section 84 before the VAT authorities contending that the name of the petitioners concern as well as its TIN and PAN numbers had been misused by a third party. ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gar, Chennai 600 030 were assessed on a total and taxable turnover of ₹ 11,73,55,009.00 for the year 2010-11 under TNVAT Act 2006 and orders passed in the reference cited. .. ............ As per the direction of the Hon ble High Court Order/direction, enquiries made with the Branch Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank, Mylapore Branch, DCB Bank, Parrys Corner Branch, Standard Chartered Bank, Rajaji Salai and the Principal Commissioner of Customs, New Customs House, Meenmbakkam. Chennai and obtained the detailed report of holding Current Account and Import, etc. as detailed below: 1.Kotak Mahindra, Mylapore Branch letter dated 16.03.2019. (a) Application filed for opening of Platina Current Account on 20.11.2010. (b) Current Account No.413011022599 was opened. (c) The place of business has been verified by Mr.C.V.Raja, Sales Manager, ID. 12561. (d) Photo identity has been verified. (e) Pan car, Ration Card, Sales Tax (TNVAT Act) Registration Certificate and signature of the proprietor of the company has been verified with reference to originals. 2.Standard Chartered Bank, Rajai Salai Branch (a) Application filed for openi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner of Customs (Air Cargo), New Custom House, Meenambakkam, Chennai 600 027, Ref.F.No.S.Misc.13/2019-20-EDI-ACC dated 19.06.2019. The dealer has made imports by IEC Code No.0405026307 through their Customs Broker M/s.Stream Line Forwarders, 255-III Floor, Linghi Chetty Street, Chennai 600 001 during the period 2010-11 2011-12 (01.04.2010 to 18.11.2011) and paid Customs Duty for ₹ 75,72,033.00 It is informed that all the above enquiry reports are clearly proved that: 1. Thiru.M.P.Ganesan, Proprietor of Tvl.S.R.S. Traders have done the Imports of Mobile Phones, Cameras and Car Stereos through Air Cargo,Custom House, Meenambakkam, Chennai. 2. Thiru.M.P.Ganesan, Proprietor of Tvl.S.R.S. Traders has filed application for opening of Current accounts to the above three Banks. 3. Thiru.M.P.Ganesan, Proprietor of Tv.S.R.S.Traders has made cheque payment to the Bankers for the purchases/Imports. In view of the above and as per the direction of the Hon ble High Court Order in W.P. No.42574 42575 of 2016 dated 04.07.2017, enquiries were made by addressing with the Customs Department, Income Tax Department, Kotak Mahindra Bank, Standard Chartered B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... business premises for opening bank accounts in their banks. An opportunity to cross- examine the customs broker was also sought. Reference was also made to the enquiry conducted by the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) and to a statement recorded by the Officer from the petitioner on 26.05.2015, after a visit to the Standard Chartered Bank to the following effect: 26.05.2010 6. According to the petitioner, the other banks were also visited by the Deputy Director, who had come to the same conclusion with respect to those banks as well and thereafter, the proceedings were dropped by the Income Tax Department. This assumption is drawn from the fact that nothing transpired after 2015 in this regard. 7. This assumption does not appear to be correct in the light of the report of the Assistant Director of Income Tax Department (Investigation) dated 16.08.2017 issued after the orders of this Court dated 04.07.2017 in W.P.No.43574 and 43575 of 2016 wherein the Department states as follows: F.No.ADIT(INV.)/U-1(2)/2017-18 Date:16.08.2017 To ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nan Kovil Street, Mannady, Chennai -1 but no such person was there and no such business concern found functioning. On perusal of KYC forms furnished by both the branches i.e. Standard Chartered Bank, Rajaji Salai branch Standard Chartered Bank, Mylapore Branch. It is ascertained that same mobile No. 9841110065 is mentioned in both KYC form i.e. M/s.SRS Traders and M/s CEE PEE Enterprises. A phone call was made on the above mentioned number but it was switched off. To enquire further, Department has searched the above mobile number in Departmental Database and it was found that same belongs to two different persons namely Shri Shakeel Ahmed M and Shri Ravichandran M in two different addresses. A notice u/s.131 was issued to Shri Shakeel Ahmed M and served on 29.12.2016 to his father, Shri K.Mastan Gani who was present at the residential address of his son. He has given written assurance that his son will appear before the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Unit 1 (2) in the 1st week of January. A separate notice u/s.131, dated 29.12.2016 was also issued to Shri Ravichandran M which was returned unnerved. Further, summon dated 30.12.2016 was issued to the Branch Manage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity being extended to the petitioner to substantiate his repeated contention that he is unconnected with the import transactions. However, the Assessing Officer has merely relied on the same materials which were already available on record, to pass the impugned order. The observations of the Assessing Officer indicate the cursory and arbitrary manner in which the assessments have been completed. Moreover, despite a request for cross-examination of the Customs Broker as well as bank officials by the assessee, the Assessing Officer does not even refer to the request, let alone consider the same. 11. I am thus of the view that the impugned assessments have not been framed in a proper manner. Though I am inclined to quash the assessments in full, I remit the same to the file of the officer to be re-done de novo solely for the reason that the report of the Income Tax Department also does not support the case of the petitioner in full and a full fledged and thorough exquiry is certainly called for in the matter. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned assessments are set aside and the Assessing Officer directed to redo the same denovo after hearing the petitioner, supplying the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
