TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 1314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondents, cannot be held to be valid in the eye of law. In such circumstances, the respondents should refund the tax amounts, collected by the respondents, from the petitioner, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. - W.P. Nos. 21544, 23442 of 2010 & W.P. No. 267 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 28-2-2011 - JAICHANDREN M., J. For the Appellant : K. Soundararajan and Ms. R. Hemalatha For the Respondents : K. Radhakrishnan, Government Advocate (T), ORDER :- M. JAICHANDREN J.- Since, the issues involved in all the writ petitions are similar in nature, they are all taken up together ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed had been remitted to the Department, along with the monthly returns. Even though the returns had been filed, along with the documents showing the system of making invoices, the second respondent had not found fault with the same and no adverse order had been passed against it. 5. It has been further stated that, as per the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, the assessments should be made for each year, if returns had been filed in time, along with the payment of tax dues. However, if the Department finds some mistakes, the assessments could be revised, under section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. 6. It has been further stated that the first respondent had inspected the place of the petitioner, on November 11, 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Vellore, the second respondent herein, on November 18, 2009, in the business premises of the petitioner. During the course of the audit, it was found that the petitioner had received a refund of input tax for the exports made. The petitioner had claimed and had received the refund, which is more than the input-tax credit. Further, there was sales omission and availment of input-tax credit on ineligible capital goods. For the said defects, the tax amount of ₹ 3,90,109 and the interest of ₹ 1,01,601, amounting to a total sum of ₹ 4,91,710 had been voluntarily paid by the petitioner, by way of a cheque, which had been realised, on December 1, 2009, and credited into the Government account. 9. It had also been stated that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 05 decided on September 10, 2009Madras High Court). (4) Keeran Builders Private Limited, by its Managing Director E. Nakkeeran v. Assessment Commissioner (CT) (Enft) See page [2013] 61 VST 42 (W.P. No. 212 of 2011 and M.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2011 decided on January 25, 2011-Madras High Court) . 12. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents and in view of the decisions cited supra and in view of the records available, it is clear that no assessment order had been passed, in respect of the assessment years concerned. 13. It is not in dispute that, for assessing the tax liability of the petitioner, a pre-assessment notice ought to have been issued to the petitioner, b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
