9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 959X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 exemption of aluminium domestic utensils on the sales ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Disallowanc e of exemption claimed on - - - - 180,747 83,204 10,002 273,953 S. No . Issues Tax amount period wise (in INR) Total amount (in INR) Rema rks the sales of sauce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioner was granted personal hearing and, therefore, the only remedy available to the petitioner was to take recourse to an appropriate proceeding under the 2006 Act. 8.1. Learned counsel says that the petitioner, should, therefore, avail of the appellate remedy, even with regard to issue No.(ii). 9. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record as also the impugned orders. 10. A bare perusal of the impugned orders would show that the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner with regard to the fact that the objections raised in the reply filed with respondent No.2, in particular, as reflected in sur-rejoinder dated 29.06.2015, have not been adverted to. Amongst the various objections taken in the sur-re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er dated 29.06.2015. 16. In view of the fact that the Writ Petition was pending adjudication before this Court, in case, the petitioner were to take recourse to a statutory remedy, qua the remaining issues, the concerned forum, will take into account this aspect of matter and, if necessary, condone the delay, by relying upon the principles analogous to Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 17. Before I conclude, I may also record that the petitioner along with the captioned writ petitions had also filed another set of petitions, which were numbered as: W.P.Nos.31985 to 31991 of 2015. 17.1. In these Writ Petitions, a declaration was sought that Sections 3(1), 3(2) and 24 of the 2006 Act be declared as unconstitutional and/or ultravires ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
