TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1652X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n modified or deleted. Since the petitioner has relied upon a decision in support of the contention regarding commission received, and with regard to repairs and replacement charges, the petitioner has referred to the service tax remitted, and with regard to difference as per balance sheet and Form WW, the petitioner has furnished certain figures and stated that there is no discrepancies. The assessing officer would state in this regard that, the assessee did not produce corroborating records. If a notice had been issued to the assessee to produce corroborating documents, they could have produce the records or upon failure, adverse inference could have been drawn. Therefore, with regard to these issues, this Court is of the view that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ealers; (ii) ITC reversal on cross verification of buyer and seller annexure; (iii) Commission received; (iv) Repairs and replacement charges; (v) Purchase suppression on purchase turnover difference as per balance sheet and Form WW; and (vi) Sales suppression on sales turnover difference as per balance sheet and Form WW. 4. The petitioner submitted their objections to the proposal to revise the assessment vide objections dated 27.12.2017, and produced records in support of their contentions on 29.12.2017. The petitioner has also referred to several orders and judgments passed by this Court in support of their contentions. 5. It is heartening to note that the assessing officer Tmt.K.Premalatha, as per the objections fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been drawn. Therefore, with regard to these issues, this Court is of the view that the matter can be remitted to the officer for fresh consideration. 6. With regard to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the entire revision of assessment itself is without jurisdiction on the ground that the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is not empowered to authorise an inspection, as he is only the Commissioner, who can do so in terms of Section 64(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). However, such a contention cannot be accepted in the instant case, because what was conducted was only an inspection by the Enforcement Wing and not a VAT audit, as cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
