TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .No.1 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 7-12-2015 - MR. R. MAHADEVAN, J For the Petitioner : Mr.V.Sundareswaran For the Respondent : Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, AGP ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent. 2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the respondent in TIN 33114440012/2012-13 dated 9.4.2015. 3.1 The petitioner is a partnership firm, carrying on the business in II Schedule goods under the Act as dealer of M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited for Kerosene, Petrol for Public Distribution System and diesel. The sales tax return with respect t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cording to them, after the demise of Late Kamalakumar, the partnership firm was reconstituted by S.Ravichandran, S/o Mr.Selvaraj Mudaliar and Ms.Pavithra Kamalakumar, D/o Late Kamalakumar and the business continued till assessment year 2012-13. While the matter stood thus, the respondent had issued notice dated 09.03.2015 on the dissolved firm, which was served on gunboy , without verifying whether he was authorized under Rule 19 of the Act to receive any notice, proposing to make revision of assessment under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, on the basis of undisclosed purchases made by the petitioner from BPCL collected from the web-site of the commercial tax department, along with penalty. It is the further case of the petitioner that after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l for the petitioner, unless there is any enabling provision under the Act to tax the dissolved partnership firm, the impugned order is bad and not enforceable. That apart, according to the learned counsel, the respondent ought to have seen that when the petitioner is a re-constituted firm upon the death of Kamalakumar, there is no jurisdiction for the respondent to make any assessment on the reconstituted firm, in the absence of any enabling provision under the Act. Besides, according to the learned counsel, sale of kerosene falling under Code No.2072 is not taxable at the hands of the petitioner, since it is for the supply in the public distribution system. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, the learned counsel for the petitioner though raised various grounds on legality, seeks indulgence of this Court for providing them an opportunity for producing documentary evidences along with detailed reply to the notice already issued. Since the partner Mr.Kamalakumar suddenly passed away, this Court is inclined to consider the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the interest of justice. 9. Hence, the impugned order dated 09.04.2015 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent for passing appropriate orders, after permitting the petitioner to file all the documentary evidences as well as reply to the notice already issued. It is made clear that the petitioner shall file the reply and produce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
