TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh sea sales turnover of ₹ 7,18,29,120/-, and remit the matter back to the authority concerned for affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner in respect of disallowance of exemption on high sea sales turnover of ₹ 7,18,29,120/-, and to proceed in accordance with law, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - W.P.No.36493 of 2016 and WMP Nos.31403 and 31404 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 19-10-2016 - MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN For the Petitioners : Mr.N.Prasad for M/s.N.Inbarajan For the respondent : Mr.K.Venkatesh, Government Advocate O R D E R Mr.K.Venkatesh, learned Government Advocate, takes notice on behalf o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s submitted for the second quarter and Form F for a value of ₹ 60,46,76,228/- was submitted for the third quarter. While so, the first respondent issued a notice dated 14.10.2015. That notice proposed to disallow the sales to registered dealers under Section 8(1) of the CST Act, being a turnover of ₹ 2,51,72,790/-, which was termed as consignment movement details from web-site. On 24.10.2015, the petitioners submitted C Declaration forms for a value of ₹ 2,46,48,087/-. This was duly acknowledged by the first respondent. O7.1.2016, the first respondent passed an order assessing the turnover of ₹ 2,51,72,790/- at 5% after disallowing concessional rate. The stock transfer value was assessed for ₹ 8,57,12,061/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been filed by the petitioner company. 4. After some elaborate arguments by both the parties, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner had submitted Audit Report as per Rule 16.A for the high sea sales, the first respondent might have considered the same and if the first respondent was not inclined to accept the audit report, as contemplated under Section 22 (4) of TNVAT Act, the petitioner should have been given an opportunity of personal hearing. Neither notice has been issued nor opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner. Therefore, there is violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order. In view of the same, the order is liable to be set aside and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. In this case, the main grievance of the petitioner is that he was not afforded personal hearing before passing the impugned order inspite of his request insofar as relating to the the disallowance of exemption on high sea sales turnover of ₹ 7,18,29,120/-. 8. In the light of the aforesaid decision, since the Department is safeguarded by the attachment made in the bank account, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 13.7.2016 insofar as it relates to the disallowance of exemption on high sea sales turnover of ₹ 7,18,29,120/-, and remit the matter back to the authority concerned for affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner in respect of disallowance of exemption on high sea sales turnov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
