TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 1001X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... favour of assessee. - W.P.No.8703 of 2015,M.P.No.1 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 26-3-2015 - S.Vaidyanathan J. For the Appellant : Mr.V.Sudakar For the Respondent : Mr.V.Haribabu, AGP(T) ORDER The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition challenging the order of the respondent dated 10.03.2015. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) who took notice for the respondent. 3.1 The case of the petitioner is that a pre-assessment notice dated 10.10.2014 was issued to the petitioner proposing to disallow the benefit of payment of tax at compounded rates under Section 6(1) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the TNVAT Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rescribed . 3.3 The petitioner is stated to have filed its objections on 12.11.2014 stating that all their purchases during the assessment year 2009-2010 was effected locally and hence entitled to pay tax at compounded rates in terms of the provisions of Section 6(1) of the TNVAT Act, which is extracted supra. 3.4 It is the grievance of the petitioner that without giving any reply, the respondent has issued another notice on 03.02.2015 stating that on verification of the Balance Sheet of the petitioner, it is evident that the payment of customs duty for the year 2006-2007 and therefore, not entitled to the benefit of payment of tax at compounded rates. The respondent has also sought for the details of sources of purchases to the tune ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the petitioner further submitted that in respect of the assessment year 2006-2007, the petitioner had opted to pay tax at compounded rates under Section 6(1) of the TANVAT Act by filing the monthly returns in Form L. Unfortunately, inspite of their objections dated 03.11.2014, the respondent has confirmed the proposal to deny the benefit of tax at compounded rates to the petitioner. He would further submit that the respondent though accepted the contention of the petitioner that all the purchases were effected locally, still proceeded to confirm his proposal on a new reasoning that the petitioner has not filed any documentary evidence for having exercised the option to pay tax at compounded rates and proceeded to levy tax on the purchase ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
