TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 907X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le the Assessing Officer to revise the assessment order. Further in the instant case, the second respondent has proposed to revise the assessment for the second time on the same scrutiny of returns filed by the petitioner, which was very much available at the time of the original deemed assessment as well as in the revision of assessment order dated 31.03.2017 and the first revision of assessment order dated 31.03.2017. There is total non-application of mind by the second respondent before passing the impugned assessment order - the impugned assessment order set aside - petition allowed. - W.P.(MD)No.5280 of 2019 And W.M.P.(MD)No.4218 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 11-3-2019 - Mr. Justice Abdul Quddhose For the Pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner to appear before him along with accounts on 15.08.2018 i.e. on a public holiday. 5.It is the case of the petitioner that they have not suppressed any sales to the respondents. Since the proposed tax was only ₹ 9,528/-, the petitioner was willing to pay the said amount to the respondent even though they were not liable to the pay the said tax as per the proposed revision of assessment. According to the petitioner, they were shocked to receive another revision of assessment notice dated 23.08.2018 from the second respondent proposing to add equal time addition to the entire reported turnover of ₹ 77,25,172/- and also proposed to levy penalty under Section 27(3)(c)of the TNVAT Act in addition to tax of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r revision of assessment. 8.It is the case of the petitioner that even though detailed objections were raised by the petitioner, the second respondent ignored the same under the impugned assessment order dated 21.12.2018. In such circumstances, the instant writ petition has been filed. 9.Heard Mr.B.Rooban, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.Thiyagarajan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 10.The learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, dated 03.05.2016 in Ravi Prakash Refineries (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that withou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed to to add equal time addition to the entire reported turnover of ₹ 77,25,172/- and penalty under Section 27(3)(c)of TANVAT Act. According to the petitioner, all these objections were not considered and therefore, the impugned assessment order has to be quashed. 15.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate for the respondent would submit that there has been suppression of sales by the petitioner. He drew the attention of this Court to the assessment order wherein the second respondent in his order has observed that the copies of the bills were not produced and the petitioner failed to appear before the second respondent during the assessment proceedings. Since the suppression of sales came to the knowledge of the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment order were very much available even at the time of original assessment and the subsequent revision. 19.The assessment pertains to the year 2013-14 whereas after first revision of assessment, which was completed on 31.03.2017, the second respondent has proposed to revise the assessment once again on 11.07.2018, which is concluded by the impugned assessment order dated 21.12.2018. 20.As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as seen from the judgments cited supra, mere change of opinion without new or fresh fact de-horse the records, will not entitle the Assessing Officer to revise the assessment order. 21.Further in the instant case, the second respondent h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
