TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 905X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent orders is that before the Enforcement Wing Officials during their inspection, the petitioner has admitted that he is not having any documents for having effected inter-state sales / purchases and the Enforcement Wing Officials have also submitted their report that the petitioner has indeed effected sales /purchase from other States. It is settled law that there must be an independent assessment made by the second respondent, while passing the assessment orders under Section 27(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The second respondent cannot mechanically accept the findings of the Enforcement Wing Officials in his report submitted to the second respondent. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to supra will also reveal the fact that the documents seized by the Enforcement Wing Officials from the petitioner must reveal the fact that the sale / purchase comes within the meaning of transaction . Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned assessment orders have been passed by total non application of mind and principles of natural justice has been violated by the second respondent by not affording copies of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on which, the second respondent has proposed to revise the original assessments. 5 . It is the contention of the petitioner that despite the said request, the second respondent has not supplied copies of those documents to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the second respondent has passed the impugned assessment orders by mechanically accepting the report of the Enforcement Wing Officials and by mechanically confirming the proposals made under their revision of assessment notices. 6. It is the contention of the petitioner that the impugned assessment orders are ex-facie arbitrary, illegal and against the provision of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and the second respondent has also violated the principles of natural justice. In such circumstances, these Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the impugned assessment orders passed against the petitioner under Section 27(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. 7 . Mr.B.Rooban, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the impugned assessment orders which are the subject matters of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nform the date of sale and value of sale made by the so called other state seller. 3)Kindly provide copy of lorry receipt in which you have made the assessment. 4)Kindly provide details of payment of lorry freight in which you have made the assessment. 5)Kindly provide copies of the purchase invoices in which you have. 10 . According to the learned counsel for the petitioner despite the request made by the petitioner, the respondents have not furnished the above mentioned details and without furnishing the said particulars, the impugned assessment orders have been passed. Therefore, according to him, the impugned orders passed by the second respondent is arbitrary, illegal and has violated the principles of natural justice. 11 . The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the following authorities:- (a). A decision of this Court reported in ( 1977) 40 STC 434 (Mad) in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Tiruchirapalli Vs. N.Subramaniam Chettiar dated 09.09.1976. (b). A decision of this Court made in W.P.Nos.9026 to 9029 of 2018 , dated 13.04.2018, in the case of M/s.Sharoff Synd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner in their replies have been duly considered by the second respondent and only thereafter, the impugned assessment orders have been passed. 15 . This Court has given due consideration to the materials placed before this Court as well as the submissions made by the rival counsels. 16. It is an admitted fact that before passing of the impugned orders, the petitioner in his reply, dated 21.06.2019 has requested the respondents to furnish the following particulars:- (a). The name of the seller to whom the goods were allegedly purchased from other States. (b). The date of sale and the value of sale made by the so-called other State sellers. (c). A copy of the lorry receipt based on which the proposal to revise the assessment was made against the petitioner. (d). The details of payment of lorry freight based on which the proposal for revision of assessments has been made. (e). The copies of the purchase invoices pertaining to the alleged purchases made by the petitioner based on which the proposal for revision of assessments was made. 17. The receipt of the replies sent by the petitioner has not been disputed in the impugned assessment orders. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice. 18. As seen from the above, the lorry receipt No.A713, dated 01.10.2014 of Tvl.Sharma Transports, Bangalore, which was recovered from the petitioner pertains only to the assessment year 2014-15. However, the same has been reflected in all the impugned assessment orders, which goes to show that mechanically the second respondent has passed the impugned assessment orders and without applying his mind to the lorry receipt, dated 01.10.2014 (Receipt No.A713) which pertains only to the assessment year 2014-2015. 19. A categorical stand has been taken by the petitioner that he has not effected sales / purchases from other States. No document has also been seized from the petitioner by the Enforcement Wing Officials of the respondents with regard to the alleged sales / purchases effected by the petitioner from other States. The only document seized by the Enforcement Wing Officials from the petitioner is the lorry receipt No.A713, dated 01.10.2014 of Tvl.Sharma Transports, Bangalore. With regard to the same, it is the contention of the petitioner that the said lorry receipt pertains only to the delivery of sample cards from other States, as the petitioner is a card sel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l for the petitioner referred to supra will also reveal the fact that the documents seized by the Enforcement Wing Officials from the petitioner must reveal the fact that the sale / purchase comes within the meaning of transaction . 24 . It is also settled law that as per the decision referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of M/s.Sharoff Syndicate represented by its Manager Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Mayiladuthruai-I Assessment Circle, Mayiladuthurai, made in W.P.Nos.9026 to 9029 of 2018 , dated 13.04.2018, that there must be an independent assessment made by the second respondent, while passing the assessment orders and the second respondent cannot mechanically accept the findings of the Enforcement Wing Officials. 25. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned assessment orders have been passed by total non application of mind and principles of natural justice has been violated by the second respondent by not affording copies of the documents sought for by the petitioner in his replies. Accordingly, the impugned assessment orders passed by the second respondent for the assessment years 2011- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
