9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Commercial Taxes vide Acts Cell-VI/13234/2001 dated 20-04-2001 and direct the respondent to pass an assessment order afresh after considering the records filed by the petitioner including the opportunity of personal hearing within a time frame. 2. The petitioner is the dealer registered under the respondent in TIN. No.33393767260. 3. For the assessment year 2012-2013, it is the case of the petitioner that since the total turnover is less than Rs. 10,00,000/- as per the Rules 7(7) of the Rules made under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006(hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), annual return had been filed by the petitioner. In this context, the petitioner had filed an acknowledgment given in this regard by the respondent, wherein, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n by the Assistant Commissioner, Karur (East), Karur, the assessing authority, based on such return, either it should have been accepted by the said respondent or if at all any difference is found in the said return, notice would have been given to the petitioner and without resorting to any of such procedure, as if the petitioner has not filed any return, the respondent proceeded to pass an order under Section 25(1) of the Act on 10.07.2015, thus that itself is a basic wrong, as under Section 25(1), order ought not to have been passed. 6. When this has been pointed out by the petitioner by filing an application under Section 84 of the Act on 19.01.2016, again, the respondent has only changed the provisions of law, that is, instead of Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hase omission, hence, liable to be taxed under Section 3(2) of the Act. 9. In this context, the learned Government Advocate would further submit that, in order to catch the escaped tax in view of the absence of the monthly return being filed by the petitioner, notice under Section 22(4) of the Act had been issued to the petitioner, however, the petitioner has not responded to the same. Hence, order has been passed, ofcourse under wrong provision under Section 25(1) instead of 22(4) of the Act, but merely because a wrong provision has been quoted, the order of assessment passed on 10.07.2015 cannot said to be vitiated. The learned Government Advocate would further submit that, even that error has been rectified by the subsequent order made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner had not responded to the said notice, therefore, the respondent had proceeded further and to pass assessment order dated 10.07.2015. 11. However, in the said order, the provision has been wrongly quoted as Section 25(1) instead of Section 22(4) even that has also been rectified, ofcourse pursuant to the application submitted in this regard by the petitioner dated 19.01.2016, by the respondent through the order dated 10.03.2016 passed under Section 84 of the Act. 12. Therefore, if at all the petitioner still has got any grievance over the orders passed by the respondent both on 10.07.2015 and 10.03.2016, against both orders, the petitioner can either file an appeal under Section 51 of the Act or revision under Section 54 of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
