9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 779X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de pursuant to inadvertent error that has been recorded in the sales record that was reflected in VAT Form 100 filed in the month of November, 2016 where the sale return has been inadvertently mentioned as ₹ 66,80,58,118/- instead of the actual sale return of ₹ 6,60,85,118/-. A perusal of the re-assessment order would indicate that the Assessing Officer has considered substantially the contention of the petitioner regarding discrepancy in VAT Form 240 which is on the basis of an inadvertent error in VAT Form 100 for the month of November, 2016. The Assessing Officer having recorded a finding, the correctness or otherwise including the aspect of filing a revised VAT Form 240 is a matter open to be considered in the substantive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said aspect of affording opportunity of personal hearing is concerned, learned counsel for the revenue is unable to controvert the said assertion and demonstrate from the records that opportunity of personal hearing was indeed granted. 4. In light of the same, the endorsement dated 31.05.2021 is set aside and the respondent is directed to reconsider the application under Section 69 of the Act filed by the petitioner afresh. All contentions of the petitioner are kept open. 5. Insofar as the attack to the assessment order on the ground that the petitioner had communicated by way of Email dated 24.04.2021 additional submissions with certain attachments detailing the errors and omissions which had taken place with respect to sales ret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith certain attachments. Additional submission is also enclosed at Annexure-'C'. A perusal of which would reveal that the petitioner had sought to resile from the earlier declaration in VAT Form 240 that has been made pursuant to inadvertent error that has been recorded in the sales record that was reflected in VAT Form 100 filed in the month of November, 2016 where the sale return has been inadvertently mentioned as ₹ 66,80,58,118/- instead of the actual sale return of ₹ 6,60,85,118/-. 8. The learned counsel for petitioner has drawn the attention to the averment in the additional submission at Para (iv) which reads as follows: In this regard, we are also attaching the certificate dated 24.04.2021 issued by the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
