2015 (9) TMI 526

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he is the Proprietor of the business concern, namely, 'Lucky Soaps' at Shengottah, Tirunelveli District and during the assessment year, the petitioner reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 11,49,835/- and 6,77,685/- respectively and also paid the tax dues to the Department along with the monthly returns. While so, the second respondent issued a notice dated 03.12.2014, alleging that the exemption claimed by the petitioner is incorrect and incomplete. According to the petitioner, he was not furnished with any particulars in connection with the said notice and also filed an adjournment letter dated 22.12.2014 se....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is proposed to reject the returns filed by the petitioner. He further submitted that despite the receipt of the pre-revision notice, the petitioner failed to submit his reply with necessary documents in support of his claim and hence, he is not entitled to seek an opportunity of hearing under Section 22(4) of the TNVAT Act and therefore, the impugned order passed by the second respondent is tenable in law. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. 7. At the outset, this Court finds that the second respondent, on scrutiny of the assessment records filed by the petitioner, found that the exemption claimed by the petitioner is incorrect and incomplete and therefore, issued the pre-revision....