2011 (2) TMI 1314

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, dealing in textiles and readymade garments. As such, the petitioner had effected the purchases from the local and other State dealers, within the State of Tamil Nadu. For the purchases effected from other State dealer, the petitioner had furnished the C declaration forms. The petitioner has also been filing monthly returns in form I showing the input-tax credit and had also adjusted the same and the sale effected by them. 3. It has been further stated that, in the year 2006-07, the petitioner had filed their monthly returns in form I and had also remitted the tax dues, along with the returns. The necessary documents in support of the returns had also been filed. In such circumstances, the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....all the said documents. After the verification, the first respondent had observed that the tax element not shown separately would also form part of the sales turnover and had forcibly collected the tax, by way of a cheque for a sum of Rs. 1,42,042, vide cheque No. 000375, dated November 12, 2010, drawn on City Union Bank Limited, Tiruvarur, as tax amounts, for the years 2006-07 to 2010-11. The said act of the first respondent is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. 7. It had also been submitted that the second respondent had not passed any order, under section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, and therefore, the collection of tax by the first respondent, at the ti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007. The purpose of audit was to find out, if there was any concealment of purchases or sales, in order to arrest the leakage of revenue and if there was any undue enrichment. If the petitioner had accepted the defects in his accounts and had agreed to pay the tax, it cannot be said that the amount had been paid under threat or coercion. 10. It had also been stated that no shop inspection, under section 65, had taken place, as stated by the petitioner. It was only a value added tax audit, under section 64(4) of the Act. The procedures mentioned in the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, cannot be extended to the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, wherein, the assessment is a self-assessme....