TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 578X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioner will have to be afforded adequate opportunity before an assessment order is passed against him. Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - W.P.(MD)No.3791 of 2019 And W.M.P(MD)No.2970 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 27-3-2019 - Mr. Justice Abdul Quddhose For the Petitioner : Mr.B.Rooban For the Respondents : Mr.N.Shanmugaselvam, Additional Government Pleader ORDER The instant Writ Petition has been filed challenging the assessment order dated 29.05.2018 passed in TIN No. 33185701798/2015-16. 2.It is the case of the petitioner that he is a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act 2006. According to him, the second respondent issued two pre revision notices, one dated 11.01.2017,and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dents. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the two pre revision notices, one dated 11.01.2017 and another dated 04.05.2017. He pointed out that on receipt of the first pre revision notice, the petitioner sent a reply dated 17.04.2017, requesting the second respondent to produce copies of the returns submitted by the other end sellers along with related records. According to him, despite the receipt of the said reply, the second respondent has not produced the returns of the other end sellers as well as other connected records. According to him, insofar as the second pre revision notice dated 04.05.2017 is concerned, even though, the second respondent has disclosed that there is purchase suppressio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Writ Petition, which is not maintainable. 6.Discussion: This Court has perused both the pre revision notices issued under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax act 2006, on 11.01.2017 and other dated 05.05.2017. In the pre revision notice dated 11.01.2017, the names of the other end sellers have been disclosed. The request made by the petitioner in his reply dated 17.04.2017, has not been considered. While passing the impugned assessment order, the reasons for rejection of the said request has also not been given in the impugned assessment order. Insofar as the second pre revision notice dated 04.05.2017, is concerned, the second respondent has not given break up details relating to the alleged purchases made by the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
