9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 484X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Judge, by the impugned order, dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appellant should avail the alternate remedy available to them under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (for short, the Act). 4. The issue involved in this appeal lies in a very narrow compass and therefore, the writ appeal itself is taken up for final disposal. 5. The appellant - dealer is engaged in garment business and it is a proprietorship concern. The proprietor of the appellant was also a partner of one M/s.Essa Hosiery Mills, which was also carrying on business in the very same address of the appellant - dealer, but was holding a separate registration and tax payer identification number. 6. The case of the appellant is that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der dated 16.2.2015 under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and this was challenged by filing W.P.No.13239 of 2015. Another learned Single Judge of this Court found that the reversal of the input tax credit granted to the appellant could not have been done without providing an opportunity and the said order 16.2.2015 fell foul of Section 84 of the Act. Accordingly, the said order dated 16.2.2015 was quashed by order dated 29.4.2015 and the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. 9. Pursuant to that, an order dated 05.12.2015 was passed. Though, at the first blush, it appears to a detailed order, the finding rendered by the Authority was only in the penultimate paragraph of the order and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. Probably such adjustment might have been on a request made by the appellant. However, nevertheless, it is the Department, which has done the adjustment. The reason for proposing to reverse that adjustment was by referring to Section 19(17) of the Act stating that the appellant is a separate dealer and adjustment from another dealer's account could not have been done. This notice was quashed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 10.3.2015 in W.P.No.6640 of 2015 filed by the said M/s.Essa Hosiery Mils. Thereafter, the question of reopening the matter by the Department by invoking its jurisdiction against the appellant does not arise. 13. Assuming for the sake of argument that if we are to accept the submission of Mrs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
