2016 (1) TMI 46

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant. Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent. 3. The appellant reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 23,48,18,308/- and Rs. 1,56,46,091/- respectively for the year 2012-13 in the monthly Form I returns filed. They were accepted and deemed to have been assessed under Section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. 4. Subsequently, the information furnished in Form I with Form WW was examined in detail and a few discrepancies were allegedly found. Therefore, the respondent issued a notice calling upon the appellant to explain the differences and discrepancies. Thereafter, a best of judgment assessment under Section 22....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ound, an appellate remedy is futile for the appellant. 8. In so far as the only other issue is concerned, the claim of the appellant is that the purchase of raw hides and skins was for the purpose of export and hence, the purchase is exempt from payment of purchase tax. The Assessing Officer refused to grant relief on the only ground that the appellant did not produce the books of accounts or any other proof in support of their claim. 9. But, the case of the appellant is that after six months of filing an application under Section 22(6), the impugned order came to be passed without even calling upon the appellant to produce the books of accounts. Therefore, the appellant pitches their claim on the ground of violation of reasonable opp....