TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 708X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2006, has filed this writ petition which is not maintainable in the considered view of this Court - The only remedy for the petitioner is only to file a statutory appeal under Section 51 of the TN VAT Act, 2006 as there is no violation of the principles of natural justice by the respondent. Petition dismissed. - W.P.(MD)Nos.7879 of 2019 And W.M.P.(MD) Nos.6235 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 3-4-2019 - Mr. Justice Abdul Quddhose For the Petitioner : Mr.N.Sudalaimuthu For the Respondent : Mr.M.Jeyakumar, Additional Government Pleader ORDER The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the assessment order dated 24.12.2018 passed in TIN 33765320075/ 2014-15 on the gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led a reply dated 10.06.2018, wherein it was again specifically informed that the particulars gathered from the other end dealers, which led the respondent to make an allegation of non-reporting of sales of branded foot wear at above ₹ 200/- were not furnished, inspite of specific request. 4. According to the petitioner, by his reply dated 07.08.2018, he had once again raised objections as to the allegations of the nonhttp:// reporting of sales of the branded foot wear at above ₹ 200/-. According to the petitioner, along with the said reply, the petitioner has also submitted all the documents like account statements..etc. It is the case of the petitioner that he received another notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e exemption claimed by the petitioner on the turn over of ₹ 17,53,605/- under the earlier returns were disallowed by the respondent and entire exempted turnover reported by the petitioner was proposed to be assessed as taxable turn over at 14.5%. 7. On receipt of the revision of assessment notice dated 09.11.2018, the petitioner sent his objections by way of reply dated 16.11.2018 stating the following:- (a) Reported total and taxable turn over for the year 2014-15 is ₹ 25,00,060/-and ₹ 8,71,570/- whereas in the notice it was shown as ₹ 26,25,175/-and ₹ 8,71,570/- but for which no reason was given; (b) The petitioner had reported sales figure given in notice dated 09 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment order dated 24.12.2018. In such circumstances, the instant writ petition has been filed. 10. Heard Mr.N.Sudalaimuthu, learned counsel or the petitioner and Mr.M.Jeyakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice for the respondents. 11. This Court has perused and examined the impugned assessment order. The objections raised by the petitioner for the revision of assessment notice dated 09.11.2018 as seen from the reply dated 16.11.2018 are as follows:- (a) Reported total and taxable turn over for the year 2014-15 is ₹ 25,00,060/ and ₹ 8,71,570/- whereas in the notice, it was shown as ₹ 26,25,175 and ₹ 8,71,570/- for which no reason was given; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en extracted by the respondent under the impugned Assessment Order. Even though common notice was issued by the respondent as early as on 07.05.2018 to the petitioner for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2015-16, wherein it was categorically stated that the petitioner had not reported sales of branded footwear at above ₹ 200/- and the petitioner was directed to pay tax of ₹ 19,93,952/- and only due to the delaying tactics adopted by the petitioner, the assessment order came to be passed on 24.12.2018. 14. It is also observed by the second respondent in the impugned Assessment order that only in cases where principles of natural justice have been violated or the order has been passed without jurisdiction, it is sett ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
