TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 948X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver is below the turnover prescribed under the Act and they have not collected tax or availed input tax as contemplated under the Act and they have not effected any inter-state purchase. That apart, the specific request made by the petitioner for an opportunity of personal hearing, has also not been granted. This amounts to violation of the Circular issued by the Commissioner - Matter remanded back. - Decided in favor of assessee. - W. P. Nos. 18895 to 18899 of 2016, W. M. P. Nos. 16490 to 16494 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 6-6-2016 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. C. Bakthasiromoni For the Respondents : Mr. Manokaran Sundaram Additional Government Pleader ORDER Heard Mr.C.Bakthasiromoni, learned Counsel ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it was observed that in the absence of such clarity, the compounding rates are not eligible. Accordingly, the respondent proposed to assess the related turnover at the appropriate rate mentioned in the show cause notice. There was also a proposal to levy penalty under section 27 of the Act. The petitioner submitted individual replies for all the show cause notices, stating that they have paid tax at 4% under compounding rate under section 3(4) of the Act and what they have done is correct, since the turnover is below the turnover prescribed under the Act. Further, it is stated that they have not collected tax or availed input tax as contemplated under the Act and they have not effected any inter-state purchases. Further, they undertook t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d they have not effected any inter-state purchase. 8. That apart, the specific request made by the petitioner for an opportunity of personal hearing, has also not been granted. This amounts to violation of the Circular issued by the Commissioner in Circular dated 20.04.2001. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of SRC PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED v. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, CHENNAI AND ANOTHER [(2010) 33 VST 333 (Mad)], elaborately considered the issue as to when and why an opportunity of personal hearing has to be granted and taking note of the Circulars issued by the Commissioner as well as the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held that in a case where the dealer seeks for a pers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
