9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order also records that the copy of the return was available on the web portal. The petitioner does not assert that the return was not filed on 02.08.2017 and that it was filed earlier. The turnover and other particulars were taken from the petitioner's returns while recording conclusions on this issue. Since the conclusion was based on a reasonable appraisal of the material, no interference is warranted as regards the tax component. Penalty - HELD THAT:- The petitioner relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in M/S. SHREE LAXMI JEWELLERY LTD. VERSUS THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP. BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (CT) , CHENNAI [ 2019 (3) TMI 297 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ] for the proposition that sub-section (4) of Section 27 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner's request for rectification with regard to the issue relating to the wrong claim of ITC to the extent of Rs. 40,15,403/-. As regards the belated filing of returns and the reversal of ITC on that account, learned counsel contends that the petitioner had requested for a copy of the returns, including by letter dated 08.08.2019. Without providing a copy of the petitioner's returns, he submits that the tax proposal was confirmed by refusing to rectify. He also submits that penalty was imposed at 300%. Learned counsel submits that penalty cannot be imposed by invoking sub-section (4) of Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (the TNVAT Act) in respect of belated filing of returns. He submits that the petitioner had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s per 'Dealer details' from the Web Portal [CF.Page 35]. Hence, the reply filed by the dealer is found not acceptable as they have not filed any proof of filing of return for the Month of March 2017 by availing of ITC amount of Rs. 1,28,30,514.00 within the prescribed time limit as per the provisions of Section 19(11) of the TNVAT Act 2006. From the above extract, it follows that the respondent noticed that the returns for the month of March 2017 were filed belatedly on 02.08.2017. The order also records that the copy of the return was available on the web portal. The petitioner does not assert that the return was not filed on 02.08.2017 and that it was filed earlier. The turnover and other particulars were taken from the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
