2015 (8) TMI 1241

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... dated dated 20/03/2015 in Roc.No.95/2015/A2. 3. Mr.S.Rajasekar, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground that the 1st respondent has no power of assessment, since the same has been conferred on the jurisdictional assessing authority viz., the 2nd respondent herein. Therefore, it is not open to the 1st respondent to exercise his powers in the guise of the impugned proceedings to conduct an independent demonstration, which is not permissible under law. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed an illustration to support his contention that when the assessee is having two units presumably one at Parrys Corner and another Unit at T.Nagar, and the assessee having re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... orders directing the 2nd respondent, who is the Assessing Officer to undertake the exercise, if at all required. 6. At this juncture, it is useful to extract below the relevant portion of the order of this Court rendered in W.P.Nos.13901, 30851 to 30880 of 2013 etc. batch cases dated 26.11.2014. "(3) For the reasons assigned, it is not sufficient for a dealer claiming refund under Section 18(2) of the Act to show that he has paid input tax on the goods purchased; that those goods are used in the manufacture and nothing more but there is duty upon the dealer to satisfy the Assessing Authority that the claim is not hit by any of the restrictions or conditions contained under Section 19 of the VAT Act. In this regard, it is essential for t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o framed assessment for the years 2006-07 to 2008-09. Therefore, it is not open to the 1st respondent to undertake any inspection in the guise of demonstration to make assessment for the years 2009-10 to 2011-12. 8. This Court finds merits in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. As noted earlier, admittedly, the petitioner having engaged in the manufacture of TMT Bars and allied products, is an assessee on the files of the Commercial Tax Officer (FAC), Tiruchengode (Town) Circle, Tiruchengode, the 2nd respondent herein. It is not in dispute that the 2nd respondent visited the petitioner's premises on 27.09.2012 to monitor and study the actual manufacturing process to ascertain the exact burning loss incurred in the....