TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 866X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as seized by the Central Excise Department. However, it was rejected and the impugned order came to be passed on 16.03.2009. In the considered opinion of this Court, in the light of the said fact, Section 16(1)(a) of the TNGST Act would not come to the aid of the appellant / writ petitioner. Before passing the revision order, the dealer should be given reasonable opportunity and personal hearing, if required so, as per Section 22(4) of the TNVAT Act, 2006. No order of revision should be made without affording an opportunity to the dealer as provided under Sections 22, 25, 27 of the Act. The impugned order, dated 02.06.2016, passed in W.P.(MD).No.2931 of 2009 as well as the impugned order, dated 16.03.2009, passed by the respondent are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts, and as a consequence, they are handicapped for the reason that the maintenance of accounts, such as day book, ledger, stock book, etc. were made only in the said computer C.P.U. It is further averred by the appellant / writ petitioner that the accounts have already been submitted to the respondent for the purpose of final assessment and then, the Assessing Officer in exercise of powers conferred under the TNGST Act had determined the total and taxable turnover as ₹ 2,69,94,005/- and ₹ 66,95,280/- respectively, for the assessment year 2000-2001 and passed the final assessment order in the proceedings dated 27.02.2004. 5. It is a claim of the appellant / writ petitioner that he had filed all the copies of the purchase and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 73,07,133.00 Total turnover proposed ₹ 3,89,22,272.00 The assessing officer has also proposed penalty at 150% under Section 16(2) of the Act. 6. The grievance of the appellant / writ petitioner is that despite the fact of seizing of C.P.U. by the Central Excise Department and without giving any personal hearing or opportunity, the assessment order, dated 16.03.2009, was made by the respondent and hence, challenging the said order, he came forward to file the writ petition. 7. The writ petition was entertained and notice was ordered. The writ petition was taken up for final disposal on 02.06.2016. The learned Judge, taking note of the fact that there is an effective alternative remedy and no extraneous circ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, within a period of five years from the date of order of final assessment by the Assessing Authority the steps to be taken with regard to the assessment of escaped turn over and that in this case, notices were issued to the appellant / writ petitioner well within the time and as such Section 16(1)(a) of the TNGST Act has no application to the case on hand. It is the further submission of the learned Special Government Pleader that the appellant / writ petitioner is also having an alternative remedy under Section 31 of the TNGST Act and he ought to file an appeal within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order and since he failed to avail alternative remedy, the learned Judge, taking into consideration the writ petition was filed wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order, dated 29.09.2006, made in W.A.(MD)No.1323 of 2016 (Tvl.Anthony Company, Tuticorin District Vs. State) (in which one of us (MSNJ) was a party). A perusal of the said judgment would disclose that as per the above said circular, before passing the revision order, reasonable opportunity of personal hearing is to be afforded and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder: b) Revision of Assessment : Under the TNVAT Act, 2006, the assessing officers usually issue orders to reverse the ITC on obvious reason. During the current financial year, the assessing officer may issue notice to reverse the ITC for each month separately under Section 25 of the TNVAT Act, 2006. After closure of the financial year, the assessment should be comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
