TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1383X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... & 27(4) of the TNVAT Act - as against the order passed under Section 27(3) of the TNVAT adjudicating the dispute which is solely on TDS a revision alone will lie. - instead of entertaining the appeal, the 2nd respondent ought to have returned the papers to the petitioner so as to enable him to represent the papers before the revisional authority - court is inclined to set aside the impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng availment of input tax credit. 3. The case of the petitioner company in brief is that it is a works contractor and a registered dealer with the respondent under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 [in short, the TNVAT Act ]. Its registration number is TIN/3302086349/2009-10. The petitioner company has been filing returns regularly and for the assessment year 2009-10 also they have file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver TDS, a revision alone would lie. It is the said order now under challenge in this writ petition. 4. Heard both sides and also perused the records carefully. 5. For the assessment year 2009-10 with regard to the dispute relating to TDS, the impugned order came to be passed under Sections 27(3) 27(4) of the TNVAT Act. 6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner so as to enable him to represent the papers before the revisional authority. 9. In view of the above, this court is inclined to set aside the impugned order of the 2nd respondent to the extent it relates to dismissal against levy of tax on TDS and the consequential levy of penalty under Section 27(3) of the TNVAT Act. 10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
