9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lected documents, pre-revision notice issued on 14.12.2016. Thereafter, reply received from the petitioner on several days. In the meanwhile, revision notice issued on 01.12.2019 and thereafter reply received and personal hearing given to the petitioner on 13.12.2019. After issuance of revision notice, the petitioner's objections considered. Thereafter, proposal to reverse ITC dropped, as regards stock variations since no records produced. The second respondent passed the impugned order. This Court does not express any opinion on the merits of the case, if the petitioner intends to approach the appellate authority to file an appeal under Section 51 of TNVAT Act. Appeal to be filed within a period of 30 days from the day of receipt of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er filed a reply letters/objections, dated 10.01.2017, 07.02.2017, 10.04.2017, 25.08.2017 and 13.02.2019 denying the allegations along with documentary evidences. With regard to the ITC and export of goods, after explanation of the petitioner, the ITC demand dropped. The second respondent, the successor Officer issued pre-revision notice and passed the impugned order, dated 28.03.2019. In the said impugned order, the second respondent confirmed his proposal to levy tax on the estimated sales value of the alleged stock difference by falsely observing that the petitioner not raised any objection and levied corresponding penalty. The impugned order passed by the second respondent is a non-speaking order, not sustainable. 4. The petitioner r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rifying the stock register is not proper. 6. The learned Government Advocate for the respondents submits that the petitioner earlier was issued a pre-revision notice, dated 14.12.2016, by predecessor in office. Subsequently, the present officer took charge, perused the files and issued a revision notice on 01.02.2019. Thereafter, objections of the petitioner considered and impugned order passed by the present officer. In view of the same, the petitioner s contention that Commissioner circular not followed is not proper. 7. He further submitted that on the petitioner s objections considered and thereafter availment of ineligible ITC dropped. Regarding the stock variations, the petitioner sent several representations, though stated stoc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
