TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 813X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted every issue before the Inspecting Authorities at the time of inspection. The Assessing Officer has only taken into consideration of the Inspection Report filed by the Inspecting Authorities and not applied his independent mind to the reply submitted by the petitioner to each issues - the Assessing Officer cannot solely depend upon the Inspection Report and conclude the assessment by brushing aside the objections raised by the petitioner as an after thought, without applying his independent mind to those objections and give any finding on the same. The Assessing Officer has not afforded an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, especially, when he has chosen to impose penalty under Section 27(3) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Enforcement Officials, without independently applying his mind to the objections raised by the petitioner in pursuant to the notices of proposal. Apart from raising the above common grounds in these writ petitions, an additional ground is raised insofar as the assessment year 2011-2012 is concerned, by contending that the very initiation of proceedings under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, was beyond the period of limitation. It is the contention of the petitioner that five years limitation period referred to in the relevant provision having expired on 31.10.2017, issuing notice of proposal on 13.11.2017 itself is barred by limitation. 5. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent contended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioner as an after thought, without applying his independent mind to those objections and give any finding on the same. Apart from the above said flaw, it is also seen that the Assessing Officer has not afforded an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, especially, when he has chosen to impose penalty under Section 27(3) of the TNVAT Act, 2006. At this juncture, it is useful to refer to the Circular No.7/2014 dated 03.02.2014, wherein, it is contemplated that granting of personal hearing is mandatory and the same shall invariably be afforded to the dealer irrespective of whether the dealer has opted for such personal hearing or not. Therefore, on the above stated facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to interfere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
