TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Department in support of his case. But, under the impugned assessment order, this Court finds that all the objections raised by the petitioner were not considered by the second respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that he has shown gross profit while filing his monthly returns before the second respondent - But without application of mind, the second respondent has come to a wrong conclusion that the goods sold by the petitioner at a lesser price than the purchase price and the petitioner has shown losses in the monthly return submitted by him. This Court is also unable to find out from the assessment order as to why the second respondent has come to that conclusion, despite the fact that the petitioner is a profit making concern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue addition in respect of goods taxable at 14.5%. However, in respect of taxable goods at 5%, they are inferred that the petitioner has not disclosed the sales made out of the net purchase value of ₹ 28,13,372/-. Therefore, there is suppression of sales in respect of goods taxable at 5% out of net purchase value. Since the petitioner has not given any value added on purchase of goods by adding normal gross profit and the entire value addition of gross profit have been sucked under the guise of commission received from seller, which resulted in gross loss of revenue to Government. 3.According to the petitioner, a detailed reply, dated 08.05.2015 was sent by the petitioner to the pre-revision notice, dated 06.04.2015 sent by the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so stated that they are not having separate inventories for goods taxable at 14.5% and 5%. According to the petitioner, the ratio adopted by the second respondent under the pre-revision notice is not warranted, as they are dealing only with cell phones (with tab cell phone) and its accessories alone, which are taxable at 5% and not at 14.5%. 6.However, while arriving at the gross profit / loss, the second respondent has omitted to deduct the discounts received from the seller at the other end, though the same is accounted in the accounts and reported through profit and loss account as per Rule 10(6)(c) of the TNVAT Rules. If this was considered, there cannot be any variation and also there cannot be any such alleged gross loss. Accord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Aggrieved over the impugned assessment order, the instant writ petition has been filed. 9.Heard Mr.B.Rooban, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.Muruganantham, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. 10.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not been afforded adequate opportunity by the second respondent before passing of the impugned assessment order. The learned Counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to Section 24(1) of the Act, which reads as follows: Section 24.Assessment of sales shown in accounts at low prices:-(1) If the assessing authority is satisfied that a dealer has, with a view to evade the payment of tax, shown in his accounts, sales ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be added to the total turnover. He also relied upon Section 19(20) of the Act, which reads as follows: Section 19: Input Tax Credit: (20)Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, where any registered dealer has sold goods at a price lesser than the price of the goods purchased by him, the amount of the input tax credit over and above the output tax of those goods shall be reversed. 13.He further submitted that as per the above referred provision, only when the entire goods were sold at a price, lesser than the purchase price, the input tax credit can be reversed. According to him in the instant case, the petitioner has made profit and therefore, Section 19(20) of the Act will not get attracted. The learned Counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y returns before the second respondent. But without application of mind, the second respondent has come to a wrong conclusion that the goods sold by the petitioner at a lesser price than the purchase price and the petitioner has shown losses in the monthly return submitted by him. This Court is also unable to find out from the assessment order as to why the second respondent has come to that conclusion, despite the fact that the petitioner is a profit making concern and has also disclosed gross profit, as seen from the reply, dated 08.05.2015, sent to the second respondent. However, as seen from the assessment order, no personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner by the second respondent before passing the assessment order. As hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
