9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 404X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the instant case, there is no such endorsement in the extracts from the records which have been placed before this Court. The writ petitioner counsel emphatically submits that the pre-assessment notices were not served on writ petitioner and the signature there is not that of anyone concerned with the writ petitioner. This is a fit case to give the benefit of doubt to the writ petitioner-dealer. This means that it has not been conclusively established {vide explanation to Rule 19(1)(a) of TNVAT Rules} that the pre-revisional notices dated 18.08.2014 have been duly served on the writ petitioner-dealer on 31.08.2014. This further means that the impugned orders will have to be interfered with on this short point and the writ petitioner-de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TIN.No. 33456230736/2013-14. These four revisional orders have been assailed in the main writ petitions and therefore, the same shall be collectively be referred to as 'impugned orders'. 3. Mr.S.Karunakar, learned counsel for writ petitioner submitted that the writ petitioner is a manufacturer and exporter of terry towels, there was deemed assessment qua writ petitioner under Section 22(2) of TNVAT Act with regard to the aforementioned assessment years. Thereafter, the place of business of the writ petitioner was inspected by Enforcement Wing Officers on 21.01.2014 and it was pointed out that the writ petitioner has not reversed ITC for manufactur of exempted goods as per Section 19(5)(a) of TNVAT Act. Pursuant to the proposals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e aforementioned proceedings, 18.08.2014. pre-revisional notices (4 notices) with what according to the respondent are acknowledgements were placed before this Court and the same are as follows: 6. Learned State Counsel submits that the pre-revisional notices have been duly served on the writ petitioner-dealer and therefore, the complaint of writ petitioner does not hold water. Learned State Counsel also pointed out that this has been asserted in the counter affidavit filed by the lone respondent and it has also been recorded in the impugned orders. 7. In response to the above, learned counsel for writ petitioner drew the attention of this Court to Rule 19 of 'Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the purposes of Sub-rule (1)(a). In the instant case, there is no such endorsement in the extracts from the records which have been placed before this Court. The writ petitioner counsel emphatically submits that the pre-assessment notices were not served on writ petitioner and the signature there is not that of anyone concerned with the writ petitioner. 9. Therefore, I am of the considered view that this is a fit case to give the benefit of doubt to the writ petitioner-dealer. This means that it has not been conclusively established {vide explanation to Rule 19(1)(a) of TNVAT Rules} that the pre-revisional notices dated 18.08.2014 have been duly served on the writ petitioner-dealer on 31.08.2014. This further means that the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur writ petitions are disposed of by making the following order: a) Impugned orders being orders dated 30.06.2015, bearing reference Nos.TIN.No.33456230736/2010-11, TIN.No.33456230736/2011-12, TIN.No.33456230736/ 2012-13 and TIN.No.33456230736/2013-14 are set aside on the short point that it has not been conclusively established {qua explanation to Rule 19(1)(a) of TNVAT Rules} that pre-revisional notices have been served on the writ petitioner and therefore, there is infraction of the common proviso to Section 27(1) and 27(2) of TNVAT Act, which makes it statutorily imperative to give a reasonable opportunity to the writ petitioner-dealer to show cause against the impugned orders; (b) Though obvious it is made clear that this Court h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
