TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner : Mr.Adithya Reddy For the Respondent : Ms.G.Dhana Madhri, Government Advocate (Taxes). ORDER Mr.Adithya Reddy learned counsel on record on behalf of writ petitioner and Ms.G.Dhana Madhri, learned Government Advocate on behalf of lone respondent, are before this Court. 2. With consent of learned counsel on both sides, the main writ petition itself is taken up, heard out and is being disposed of. 3. A counter-affidavit dated 20.12.2018 has been filed by lone respondent. 4. After the counter-affidavit was filed by lone respondent, in the light of averments made in paragraph-5 of the counter-affidavit, this Court directed learned Revenue Counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rit petitioner on 16.6.2015. Writ petitioner did not file any reply. Therefore, left with no option, respondent passed a revised assessment order dated 14.12.2017 bearing Reference No.Tin:33190482853/2011-12, which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'impugned assessment order'. To be noted, the impugned assessment order is a revised assessment order under Section 27 of TNVAT Act. 9. This Court now revert to paragraph-5 of the counteraffidavit filed by lone respondent and proceedings of this Court dated 15.7.2019, which have already been alluded to supra. Paragraph-5 of the counter-affidavit filed by lone respondent reads as follows: 5. With regard to the averments made i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as a sequitur and unfurls is that proceedings for cancellation of Registration Certificates of dealers from whom writ petitioner has purchased texable goods are post-assessment year i.e., post 31.3.2012. To state with specificity, it is 9.5.2012. However these proceedings cancelled Registration Certificates of dealers (from whom writ petitioner had purchased taxable goods) with effect from 22.2.2011, which is prior to commencement of the assessment year i.e., 1.4.2011. 12. Learned Revenue Counsel adverting to the impugned order, pointed out that writ petitioner ought to have sent a reply to the revisional notice dated 15.6.2015, which was duly served on the writ petitioner on 16.6.2015. If the writ petitioner had sent a repl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
