2014 (8) TMI 295

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....visions of TNVAT Act, 2006. 2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the respondent has issued a notice dated 30.06.2011 proposing to revise the assessment order passed for the assessment year 2010-2011 on the ground that the petitioner has not included the ADD payable under Section 30 of Special Economic Zone Act, 2005 in the sale value of goods. Inspite of objections filed by the petitioner, by an order dated 21.10.2011, the respondent confirmed the proposals and revised the assessment order passed for the year 2010-2011. As against the said order dated 21.10.2011, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) V, Kancheepuram. After hearing both sides, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t is further stated that the copy of the order dated 24.03.2014 was delivered to the petitioner only on 30.05.2014. The petitioner can therefore prefer a revision petition within 90 days from 30.05.2014. However, even before the expiry of the time stipulated for preferring the revision, the respondent has issued the impugned notice calling upon the petitioner to pay the penalty amount within three days. If the impugned notice is given effect to, the right of the petitoiner to prefer revision will be taken away and in such event, the petitioner will be highly prejudiced. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court in the decision rendered in the case of Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd., vs. Deputy Commisisoner reported in (2008....