2015 (10) TMI 450

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... orders dated 20.08.2015 in VAT 33693320410/2009-10 to 2013-14 respectively and quash the same as illegal arbitrary and against the express provisions contained in the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act 2006 (hereinafter referred to as TNVAT Act), in so far as having failed to provide opportunity of personal hearing and consequently direct the Respondent to provide an opportunity of personal hearing in order to substantiate the claim of the petitioner in proper manner as per the provisions of the TNVAT Act. 3.1 The petitioner, being a dealer as defined under Section 2(15) of the TNVAT Act is an assessee on the file of the respondent, holding a Tax Identification Number (TIN) 33693320410 and CST No.448040. The petitioner's accounts are bein....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ays from the date of receipt of the said notices. On receipt of the same, the petitioner filed communications dated 08.06.2015, specifically requesting the respondent to furnish the cancelled dealers list involving ITC with a further request to grant 30 days time after furnishing the list in order to file necessary documents and objections in order to substantiate their claim. 3.6. However, to the shock and surprise of the petitioner, the respondent has passed orders dated 20.08.2015 for the assessment years in question, based on the unilateral report filed by the Enforcement Wing Officers. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 4.1 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders of assessmen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....earned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 7. Despite the Circular issued by the Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated 03.02.2014, wherein, in paragraph 3 (b), it is specifically stated that no order should be made without affording an opportunity to the dealer, the respondent, has passed the impugned orders by observing that no opportunity of personal hearing be provided. This sort of practice adopted by the respondent cannot be countenanced. Since the issue relates to mis-matching of taxable turnover on the basis of documentary evidences, it is the bounden duty of the respondent to give due opportunity to the petitioner. But, despite specific request made by the petitioner to afford ....