TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 441
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... counsel on either side. 2. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In W.P.No.3334 of 2015, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the first respondent dated 30.1.2015, which is an order of re-assessment by determining the petitioner's turnover at Rs. 51,43,654/-. The challenge in W.P.N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ondent (original Assessing Officer) at Rs. 49,57,639/-. Therefore, this endeavor of the learned counsel for the petitioner to convince this Court to state that the first respondent, who has become the Assessing Officer of the petitioner from 2014, cannot seek to reopen the turnover having already been determined at Rs. 49,57,639/- 5. However, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cause notice dated 9.9.2009, in which, the Assessing Officer (second respondent) came to the conclusion that the petitioner's annual turnover for the concerned year exceeded Rs. 50 lakhs. Therefore, the assessment order dated 12.3.2010 based on self assessment in accordance with Section 22(2) of the Act, cannot be said to be an embargo for the first respondent to initiate the present proceedi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng Officer refers to the petitioner's objection dated 30.9.2009, it is seen that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of personal hearing. On this ground alone, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. 9. Accordingly, W.P.No.3334 of 2015 is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the first respondent for fresh consideration and while doing so, the f....