TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 959X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition Nos. 31993, Writ Petition Nos. 31994, Writ Petition Nos. 31995, Writ Petition Nos. 31996, Writ Petition Nos. 31997, Writ Petition Nos. 31998 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 11-1-2017 - Rajiv Shakdher, J. For Petitioner : Mr.Sujit Ghosh For Respondents : Mr.K.Venkatesh, G.A. ORDER 1. The captioned Writ Petitions are directed against seven (7) separate orders of even date, i.e., 20.08.2015. The impugned orders pertain to Assessment Years (A.Ys) 2007-2008 to 2013-2014. 2. It is pertinent to note that some of the issues dealt with in the impugned orders are common, while others do not find mention in the impugned orders. 2.1. It is, however, common ground between the parties before me, that, the following issues were part of the adjudication process before respondent No.2; these being: i) Tax on difference in sales turnover in books of accounts and monthly VAT returns ii) Tax computed on sale of goods at a price lesser than the cost of the goods iii) Tax on miscellaneous income iv) Tax on handling charges paid on transportation of goods v) Disallowance of exemption of printed material on sale of brouchers vi) Disallowance of exempt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax on handling charges paid on transportati on of goods 83,189 151,02 3 263, 146 - - - - 497,358 5 Disallowanc e of exemption of printed material on sale of brouchers 1,415,76 0 1,680, 766 2,38 5,21 0 2,177, 671 1,587,80 9 250,545 140,016 9,637,77 7 Ignore d that matter is alread y in appeal for 2007- 08 and 2008- 09 6 Disallowan ce of exemption of aluminium domestic utelsils on the sales of non-sticky fry pan and non-sticky tawa 518,985 207,09 3 87 93,87 0 135,717 149,494 27,419 1,132,66 5 Ignore d that matter is alread y in appeal for 2007- 08 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osit of tax has taken place. 6. In so far as issue No.(ii) is concerned, counsel for the petitioner says that the impugned orders for AYs.2007-08, 2008-09 and 2010-11 to 2013-14 need to be interfered with, as there has been a breach of natural justice. 6.1. In this behalf, learned counsel for the petitioner says that the show cause notice in the first instance was issued on 12.11.2014, to which a reply was filed on 27.11.2014. 6.2. The record shows that, in effect, a rejoinder was issued by respondent No.2, on 16.6.2015. In the rejoinder, the respondent took the stand that the tax liability has been arrived at in accordance with the provisions of Section 24 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (in short 'the 2006 Act'). Consequent thereto, the petitioner filed a sur-rejoinder, so to speak, dated 29.06.2015, followed by an additional submission dated 30.06.2015. 6.3. To be noted, in the sur-rejoinder dated 29.06.2015, the petitioner, raised several objections which can briefly be categorised under the following heads: i) That Section 24 of the 2006 Act was not applicable to bonafide transactions. ii) The guidelines mentioned in Rule 8(3) of the Tamil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e objection taken that the demand is barred by limitation. 12. Therefore, having regard to the overall facts and circumstances, I am of the view that, there has been a breach of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, the conclusions are not based on the objections raised and the materials placed before respondent No.2. 13. Accordingly, I am inclined to accept the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, which is to set aside the impugned orders, pertaining to A.Ys.2007-08 to 2008-09 and 2010-11 to 2013-14 qua issue No.(ii), only. 13.1. It is ordered accordingly. 14. As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he would have liberty to prefer an appeal with regard to the remaining issues in accordance with the extant provisions of law. 15. Respondent No.2 will grant a fresh opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to present its case vis-a-vis issue No.(ii). In this behalf, respondent No.2 will issue a notice to the petitioner indicating the date, time and venue where the authorised representative of the petitioner would have to appear and present its case. After hearing the petitioner, respondent No.2 will pass a fresh order taking into account all the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
