TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 932X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t objections to the pre-assessment notice. Thus, the revision of assessment made by the respondent under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner is bad in law and violates the principles of natural justice - the matter is remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration and the respondent is directed to afford sufficient opportunity to the petitioner including the right of personal hearing - petition allowed by way of remand. - P.(MD)No.9786 of 2016 And W.M.P.(MD)No.7747 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 20-2-2019 - Mr. Justice Abdul Quddhose For the Petitioner : Mr.A.Chandrasekaran For the Respondent : Mr.N.Shanmugaselvam Additional Government Pleader ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the petitioner and Mr.N.Shanmugaselvam, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the reply, dated 30.11.2015 sent by the petitioner to the respondent for the pre-revision notice, dated 21.09.2015. According to him, the entire proposal of the respondent to revise the assessment is mainly based on the inspection report. According to him, simply because a statement was recorded in the inspection report, it cannot be presumed that correct statutory provisions were exercised for making revision of assessment. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had already opted for compounding assessment and thereby filed r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sputed by the respondent in the impugned order. As seen from the reply sent by the petitioner, he has submitted that he has already opted for compounding assessment and has also filed monthly returns and paid the tax, which has also been accepted by the respondent. According to the petitioner, the respondent initiated revision proceedings to revise the assessment order based on the inspection made by the Enforcement Wing Officials on 18.06.2015. In his reply, he has stated that based on the inspection report, the respondent cannot revise the earlier assessment. 8.It is also the case of the petitioner, that while revising the assessment, the respondent failed to deduct the following expenses, which do not involve any transfer of property ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ules. I overrule their objections and confirm my proposals and pass order as below for the year 2011-2012. Less: Tax due : Rs.2,68,302- TDS filed (original) : ₹ 80,563- Difference : Rs.1,87,739- Percentage of difference : 70% Percentage of penalty due : 150% Penalty proposed : Rs.2,81,608- TAX PENALTY Rs. Rs. Due : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of assessment made by the respondent under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner is bad in law and violates the principles of natural justice. 13.In the result, the impugned order, dated 15.04.2016 passed by the respondent in TIN. No.33744841779/2011-12 is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration and the respondent is directed to afford sufficient opportunity to the petitioner including the right of personal hearing and pass final order under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight [8] weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14.With the aforesaid dir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
