TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 471X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cancelled with return of cheque issued by customer and thereupon it was also further made clear that petitioner has also filed revised return – But nowhere these documents were considered – Respondent was duty bound to consider all documents, atleast documents called for from their side – That shows there was absence of application of judicious mind –Therefore, respondent miserably failed to consider entire case, direction issued to respondent to re-consider entire issue in accordance with law – Impugned order set aside – Decided in favour of Petitioner. - W.P.No. 21962 of 2015 and M.P.No. 1 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 24-7-2015 - T. Raja,J. For the Petitioner : Mr. K. Magesh For the Respondent : Mr. S. Kanmani Annamalai, Addl. Govt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith a request to revise the petitioner's monthly turnover from ₹ 8,90,000/- to ₹ 5,16,810/- along with a further request to adjust payment of tax of ₹ 1,866/- in future payment. While so, the Thiruvanmiyur Assessment Circle issued notice dated 22.11.2012 informing the petitioner that the turnover exceeded ₹ 50 lakhs, thereby the petitioner was liable to pay tax at the rate of 12.5% or more as applicable under TN VAT Act. Learned counsel submits immediately the petitioner filed an objection vide reply dated 30.11.2012 stating that the turnover for the assessment year 2011-2012 was only ₹ 47,91,010/-. On this basis, the petitioner requested the Tiruvanmiyur Assessment Circle to drop the proposal. However, aft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ancellations of the invoice No.353, dated 22.07.2011 has not been furnished; (iii) All the three copies of the cancelled invoice has not been produced for scrutiny; (iv) Copy of the reply to the notice dated 23.11.2012 have not been filed with acknowledgement for the receipt of the same filed in the Assessment Circle may be filed.'' 4. Again, the petitioner submitted all the documents on 20.3.2015 requesting the respondent to drop the proceedings as the petitioner has not crossed the limit of ₹ 50 lakhs. Finally, the respondent, without considering the documents sent by the petitioner, has passed the erroneous order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that nowhere the impugned order mentions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner had sent all the above four documents clearly mentioning therein that the invoice No.353 dated 22.7.2011 for a sum of ₹ 3,73,190/- was cancelled with the return of cheque issued by the said customer and thereupon it was also further made clear that the petitioner has also filed revised return for the month of July 2011 manually on 16.9.2011 requesting the respondent to revise their monthly turnover from ₹ 8,90,000/- to ₹ 5,16,810/- with a further request to adjust the payment of tax of ₹ 1,856/- in future payment. But nowhere these documents have been considered. When the respondent has called for all the documents and subsequently in reference to the notice, all the documents having been sent by the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
