Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2020 (5) TMI 470 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxImposition of compounding/composition fees under Section 72 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act 2006 - allegation is that the goods transport accompanied defective an therefore there was contravention of 71(5) of the Act - revision petition was dismissed by the 2nd respondent holding that the goods moved and the details in invoice No.0415 did not match - HELD THAT - Though the petitioner claims that 7 logs were purchased by the petitioner on 06.08.2010 from M/s.New Patel Saw Mills Shengottah it is noticed that the petitioner has produced yet another commercial invoice dated 31.08.2010 wherein also a transaction in respect of 7 logs has been shown for a total value of Rs. 13, 50, 318/- (Rs. 12, 00, 283/- Rs. 15, 00, 035/-). The petitioner has also enclosed the copy of another delivery Form JJ dated 03.09.2010 to show that the balance of 3 logs valuing Rs. 6, 30, 000/0 approximately were being sent back to the petitioner - It is not clear how invoice dated 31.08.2010 can be relied in support of the purchase of 7 logs on 06.08.2010. The petitioner has also not stated these facts before the 2nd respondent. The petitioner had earlier purchased 7 logs from the said M/s.New Patel Saw Mill Shengottah on 06.08.2010 and had purportedly delivered the same to Sri Swastik Saw Mill Erode for cutting and sawing. However a new invoice dated 31.08.2010 has been filed to substantiate the same transaction. This raises doubt. Two transactions cannot be one and the same. Since there was several disputed questions of facts which were not placed before the 2nd respondent by the petitioner a fair chance may be given to the petitioner to place the same before the 2nd respondent for the latter to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner - Petition disposed off by way of remand.
|