TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For The Petitioner : Mr.V.Sundareswaran For The Respondents : Mr.S.Manoharan Sundaram, AGP ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 14.10.2015. 2. The case of the petitioner, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a registered dealer in leather goods and garments, having TIN No.33050522312 on the file of the second respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. During the course of business, M/s.ABCO Leathers Pvt. Ltd., Ranipet supplied Sheep Wet Blue Skins to the petitioner. In this regard, M/s.ABCO Leathers Pvt. Ltd., Ranipet raised invoice No.0032 dated 0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sisting upon any payment of tax or compounding fee. 4. Adding further, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this Court, after considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and after perusing the entire materials available on record, by order dated 16.10.2015 has disposed of the writ petition in W.P.No.33289 of 2015, the operative portion of the said order reads as follows:- 7.Under these circumstances, since the second respondent being the Assessing Authority also made as a party here, it is always open to the second respondent to take appropriate action against the petitioner, if any violation found out and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. When such being position, there is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ady proposed in the notice dated 12.10.2015. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the order of this Court made in W.P.No.33289 of 2015 dated 16.10.2015, challenging the said notice dated 12.10.2015, the goods so detained were released. Since the 2nd respondent, the assessing authority is empowered to proceed in the manner known to law, if he finds that the petitioner has committed any violation of the rules and regulations and since the 1st respondent is not empowered to impose and collect the compounding fee, the impugned order dated 14.10.2015 issued by the 1st respondent is liable to be set aside and accordingly the same is set aside. It is always open to the 2nd respondent to proceed in the manner known to law for passing necessary ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
