9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 648X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und the amount of the compounding fee of Rs. 4,44,191/-. 2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was the registered dealer on the file of the fourth respondent under the erstwhile repealed Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 [hereinafter referred to as 'Act']. The petitioner was carrying on business in retail aggregation goods from 2012 -13 to 2015 - 16 and monthly returns were filed. The returns were self assessed and deemed to have been accepted. There was no inspection or fault found with the records maintained by the petitioner nor there was any revision of assessment of the earlier period. 3.The further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner with an intention to start a new venture, so as to modernise the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioner preferred revision before the second respondent and the said revision was dismissed on 11.03.2019. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred further revision before the first respondent, however, the impugned notice was issued returning the revision papers on the ground that the revision was filed after lapse of time limit prescribed under the Act. Hence, this writ petition. 6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner filed second revision before the first respondent in terms of Section 57 of the Act, challenging the order of the second respondent dated 11.03.2019. Though the first respondent has no power to condone the delay in filing the second revision, inorder to render substantial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner preferred revision before the second respondent and the said revision was dismissed on 11.03.2019. Challenging the said order, the petitioner preferred second revision beyond the period of limitation before the first respondent in terms of Section 57 of the Act. Since the first respondent has no power to condone the delay in filing the second revision, the first respondent issued the impugned notice dated 10.09.2020 and returned the revision papers to the petitioner. 10.However, this writ petition has been filed after a lapse of two years and the reason for the delay in filing this writ petition has not been explained by the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition suffer on the ground of delay and latches. 11.The writ petition is accor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
