9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 524X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are identical, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner is a private limited company engaged in the preparation and sale of eatables and articles of food and drinks with the principal place of business at No.75 Arockyasamy Road East, Coimbatore. The petitioner also runs restaurants in other places numbering about 15. In respect of the premises at No. 75 Arockyasamy Road East, Coimbatore, the petitioner have let out four floors in the building namely, fourth to seventh floors to a partnership firm consisting of four partners for running a lodging house, which has been granted a Two Star status by the Tourism Department. The petitioner have filed returns and had been remitting the tax under Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7(1)(b), the petitioner was informed that they were responsible for collecting VAT from the customer at the rate of 12.5% on the value charged in the bills and the correctness of the taxable turnover of the main branch is still ascertainable from the petitioner and they were instructed to produce branch wise sale details at the earliest and if not, it is proposed to bring 50% of the reported taxable turnover under Section 27(1) of the TNVAT Act to pay tax at 12.5%. There was also a proposal to levy penalty under Section 27(1)(b) of the TNVAT Act. The petitioner by their reply, while resisting the proposal to revise the assessment, apart from other contentions stated as follows:- Probably and presumably, on an erroneous understanding and i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taxable turnover under Section 27(1) of the TNVAT Act to pay tax at 12.5%, upon failure of the petitioner to produce branch wise sale details. Along with the objections to the show cause notice, the petitioner has enclosed certain records. However, the respondent, without adverting to any of the records, overruled the objections raised and assessed the petitioner to tax at 14.5% in respect of all its branches. It is noteworthy to point out at this juncture that an advance ruling has been issued by the authority, dated 29.09.2014 in ACAAR No.042/2014-15 (Acts Cell-II/21576/2014) dated 29.09.2014, wherein a clarification regarding the rate of tax on sale of ready to eat unbranded foods and drinks, including sweets, savouries were sought for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a public limited company. That apart, the impugned order has proceeded on a totally different line, than what was proposed in the show cause notice. Further, the respondent being the Assessing Officer has to take note of the advance ruling issued by the authority as referred supra.
9. Hence, for all the above reasons, this Court deems it appropriate to interfere with the impugned orders and remand the matter to the respondent for fresh consideration. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are allowed, the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
