9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 967X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik, learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) for the lone respondent are before this Court. 3. Captioned main writ petitions were taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides owing to the narrow compass of the matter and the acute angle on which the pivotal point for consideration turns. 4. Short facts shorn of granular particulars are that the petitioner was a registered dealer under the 'the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (Tamil Nadu Act No.32 of 2006)' [hereinafter 'TNVAT Act' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity]; that there was deemed assessment over a period of time; that the writ petitioner dealer is a private limited company incorporated in India; that the writ petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther captioned writ petition namely, W.P.No.33151 of 2022; that in W.P.No.33151 of 2022, when the matter was listed in the Admission Board, this Court formulated two questions and made proceedings dated 09.12.2022 (the same will be reproduced infra); that the challenge to the impugned assessment order if decided would impact the impugned notice as one is sequitur of the other i.e., demand notice is sequitur of the assessment order. 5. Though very many averments have been made in the writ affidavit, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner focused his submission on one point and that one point is, in the impugned assessment order, there is no mention about the writ petitioner's aforementioned reply dated 07.03.2018. In this regard, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s it is statutorily imperative for the respondent to give a reasonable opportunity to the dealer before the impugned assessment order was made. Though a show cause notice was issued, there is nothing that is articulated in the impugned assessment order to show that the reply was considered. As there is no mention about the reply, this Court is of the considered view that the statutorily imperative requirement does not stand satisfied in the case on hand qua impugned assessment order and that calls for interference. 8. As alluded to supra for the sake of convenience, 09.12.2022 proceedings made in W.P.No.33151 of 2022 and WMP thereat is extracted and reproduced so that the two formulated questions are readily available i.e., for ease of ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce) has been considered whereas it is statutorily imperative to give the dealer a reasonable opportunity to show cause; (b) The respondent is directed to consider the reply dated 07.03.2018 given by the dealer and make an assessment order afresh; (c) Though obvious, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any view or opinion on the merits of the matter and all questions are left open for the respondent to consider while doing Section 27 best judgment assessment drill de novo; (d) Questions formulated vide 09.12.2022 proceedings in W.P.No.33151 of 2022 are left open for being decided in another matter where a legal tussle and a finding becomes imperative for deciding the matter; (e) As regards reasonable opportunity, State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
