9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the assessment order passed by the second respondent dated 3.2.2015 under the provisions of the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the PVAT Act). 3. The petitioner is a firm registered under the provisions of the PVAT Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner's manufacturing unit was inspected on 30.9.2014 by a Team of officials of the second respondent. The Inspecting Team was informed by the petitioner that the petitioner is an importer of various components of set-top boxes and after integrating the components and after loading the respective software in them, they sold them on re-sale basis in the Union Territory of Puducherry a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2014, the petitioner submitted a letter requesting 30 days' time for filing a reply. This request was considered and time was granted till 12.11.2014. 5. On 12.11.2014, the dealer filed a reply and the reply was considered. The details from the petitioner's bank account were also taken into consideration and the second respondent concluded that nature of the transactions clearly reveals that the petitioner supplied set top boxes to M/s.Sky Vision, Yanam and nowhere they produced the details of the invoice, under which, the above supply was being made. Further, the second respondent held that there was no proper documentary evidence to support their claim and that the invoices mentioned in the notice dated 16.10.2014 were only profo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner has rushed to this Court only after their bank accounts have been attached. It is further pointed out that one of the partners of the petitioner firm is a Government servant working in the Government of Puducherry and this came to light only during the course of inspection, that a separate action has been initiated by the Intelligence Department and that after coming to know of this, the partner, who has been working in the Government of Puducherry, resigned from partnership. 8. After hearing both the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Additional Government Pleader, this Court is of the view that since there is no explanation for the inordinate delay in challenging the impugned order, this Court would have been well ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
