TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t open to 1st respondent to undertake any inspection in guise of demonstration to make assessment – When petitioner has admittedly submitting assessments only to 2nd respondent, 1st respondent cannot embark upon fresh demonstration of the petitioner premises with the aid of the central excise department and the electricity board officials– Therefore, impugned communication of 1st respondent, requesting Assistant Executive Engineer, to depute responsible officer to attend work with respect to trial production is quashed – Decided in favour of Petitioner. - W. P. No. 11884 of 2015, M. P. Nos. 1 & 2 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 4-6-2015 - T. Raja, J. For the Appellant : Mr. S Rajasekar For the Respondent : Mr. V Haribabu, AGP (Taxes) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inspection and visit at the office of the assessee situate at T.Nagar. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that in similar circumstances, when an identical issue came up for consideration before this Court, in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.13901, 30851 to 30880 of 2013 etc. batch cases, this Court, by order dated 26.11.2014, in paragraph No.63(3), while answering the similar issue has held that the assessing officer alone is to embark upon the fact finding exercise to ascertain the quantum of loss of the goods. Therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the Assessing Officer to visit the place of business of the petitioner, but not by the 1st respondent. 6. Mr.V.Haribabu, learned Additional Governmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epresentation made by the dealer is justified and is not hit by any any of the restrictions and conditions contained in Section 19 and in particular Section 19(9) of the VAT Act . 7. Admittedly, in the present case, the Assistant Commissioner(CT), (ENT) Namakkal, the 1st respondent herein, has issued the impugned notice. When the petitioner has admittedly submitting the assessments only to the 2nd respondent at Tiruchengode, the 1st respondent, who is an official of the Enforcement Wing of the Commercial Tax Department, cannot embark upon fresh demonstration of the petitioner premises with the aid of the central excise department and the electricity board officials. It is also an admitted fact that the 2nd respondent who is the jurisdi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent, it is not proper on the part of the 1st respondent to have access to the documents of the petitioner that are available with the 2nd respondent. Besides, as this Court has also in the aforesaid decision cited supra (W.P.Nos.13901, 30851 to 30880 of 2013 etc. batch cases dated 26.11.2014) has held that the Assessing Officer alone to embark upon the fact finding exercise to ascertain the quantum of loss of the goods, the petitioner is justified in making a prayer not to permit the 1st respondent to undertake any visit on the premises of the petitioner. 9. Therefore, this writ petition stands allowed and the impugned communication dated 20.03.2015 of the 1st respondent, requesting the Superintendent, Central Excise Department, Namakk ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
