TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e audited financial statement, is concerned, the respondent termed the sale as a suppression on the part of the petitioner and confirmed the proposal. Such a finding is incorrect because the respondent should examine the correctness of the intra unit transfer and if it is really an intra unit transfer, then the question of sale does not arise. Therefore, the observation with regard to Form WW and the audited statement produced by the petitioner is incorrect. With regard to sale of capital goods, the petitioner produced certificates from the buyer. According to the respondent, the certificate is defective, as the commodity code has not been properly mentioned. If there is a defect in the certificate, nothing prevented the respondent from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct and not tenable - this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned assessment orders on the above indicated five issues and remit the matters back to the respondent for a fresh consideration - petition allowed by way of remand. - Writ Petition Nos. 22414 to 22416 of 2017 & WMP. Nos. 23507 to 23509 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 7-9-2017 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. N. Prasad For the Respondent : Mr. K. Venkatesh, GA ORDER Mr.K.Venkatesh, learned Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondent. Heard both. By consent, the writ petitions are taken up for joint disposal. 2. The petitioner is a registered dealer on the file of the respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observation in the impugned assessment orders that if the petitioner wanted additional details, they could have applied for the same before the Assessing Officer. 6. On perusal of the objections, I find that the petitioner made a specific request for furnishing of statement on monthly basis and also invoice-wise break-up in respect of the suppliers concerned. Therefore, the finding that the petitioner could have sought for details is incorrect, as they have already sought for the details. 7. So far as Form WW, which was produced by the petitioner appended along with the audited financial statement, is concerned, the respondent would state that there are certain discrepancies. The reason for coming to such a conclusion is that the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt, then an opportunity ought to have been granted to the petitioner to produce additional documents or explain whatever documents have been placed. Hence, the respondent should not have confirmed the proposal on the said head for the reasons given by him in the impugned assessment orders. 10. With regard to miscellaneous income, the petitioner provided break-up details of miscellaneous income stating that they are from DGFT drawback claim provision and creditors write off and with regard to sale of scrap, they had indicated the amount and shown that they had already paid tax at 5%. However, the respondent confirmed the proposal under the said head by stating that the details furnished by the petitioner are also taxable categories and h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of wrong claim of value added tax credit. (ii) While furnishing the particulars, the respondent is directed to return the certificate issued by the buyers with regard to capital goods, as it has been found defective, giving liberty to the petitioner to correct the defects and represent the certificate. (iii) After the receipt of documents mentioned in sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) above, the petitioner is granted 15 days' time to file the additional objections with regard to all the five issues and on receipt of the objections, the respondent shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and redo the assessments under those five heads indicated above, in accordance with law. (iv) Till the above direction i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
