9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 under Section 27 (3) (C) of the TNVAT Act, 2006. Operative portion of the impugned order reads as follows: "A notice was issued to the dealer on 16.06.2022 and requested to file the written objections if any to the above notices, within 7 days from the receipt of the notice, failing which order will be passed as proposed. On receipt of the notice, the dealer did not file any credible records. It is obviously known that no vital records to file. If failure to file the objections and it is confirm the proposal for the year 2015-16 under TNVAT Act 2006 as detailed below. Total turnover determined Rs.5,78,77,613.00 Total taxable determined Rs.5,78,77,613.00 @ 14.5% Total Tax due Rs.71,26,907.00 Total paid Rs. NIL Balance Rs.71,26, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 4. It is submitted that the impugned demand was not sustainable. However, after receiving reply dated 24.07.2017 and 24.08.2017 of the petitioner, the respondent has issued second show cause notice dated 14.12.2020, to which again the petitioner has replied on 12.01.2021. Despite the same, the respondent has proceeded to pass the impugned order. In the impugned order, reference was made to a notice dated 16.06.2022, which however was not received by the petitioner. 5. It is submitted that without furnishing the particulars, the respondent have confirmed the demand. It is submitted that the impugned order also suffers from violations of principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not heard before the impugned order was passed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r before the impugned order dated 30.06.2022 was passed. The date 16.06.2022 in the impugned order appears to be CAG Audit defects, as is evident from the reference in the preamble to the impugned order. Copy of the said CAG Defect Memo dated 16.06.2022 of CAG Audit team also appears to have not been served to the petitioner before the impugned order was passed on 30.06.2022. 12. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable. It has to therefore go in the manner in which it has been passed. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted back to the respondent to pass an appropriate order within 75 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondent shall furnish the details of the alleged import ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
