TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is partly allowed, the impugned order in so far as it pertain to Sl.Nos. (1),(4) (5) & (6) viz. Reversal of ITC due, Tax Due on Sales return, Interest, tax Due on Sales suppression and penalty under section 27(3) and 27(4) of the Act are set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration and the petitioner is granted fifteen days time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to submit relevant documents and on receipt of the documents and objections, the respondent shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing and redo the assessment in accordance with law. Petition allowed by way of remand. - W.P.No.39482 of 2016 & WMP No.33778 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 18-11-2016 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice dated 26.02.2016, on the same three heads. The petitioner submitted their reply to both those notices. After taking note of the reply, the respondent issued third revised property assessment notice dated 09.08.2016. The proposal under the head, Wrong Claim of ITC, reversal of ITC for Interstate Sales, Sales Return and Sales Suppression. 5. The respondent had granted only three days time to respond to the notice. Immediately on receipt of the notice, the petitioner appeared before the respondent and able to produce the documents with regard to the wrong claim of ITC pertaining to certain transactions. After perusal of the same, the respondent found that the documents were in order and the proposal was dropped in the impugned processin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in so far as it relates to Sl.Nos. 1,4, 5 6. So far as Sl.Nos.2 3, the petitioner admits their liability. 8. In the light of the above, the impugned order is confirmed in so far as the findings rendered in respect of the reversal of ITC, as mentioned in Sl.Nos.2 3 alone. 9. So far as the purchases are concerned, the respondent in the impugned order has verified the records and found the same to be in order. Therefore, the said finding does not require any indulgence in respect of the dispute which the petitioner now has raised, which pertains to Sl.Nos. 1,4, 5 and 6, this Court is of the view that sufficient time should have been granted to the dealer to produce the documents and contest the proposal. According three days time, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
