2016 (1) TMI 89

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....etitions are one and the same. The assessment years alone are different. Therefore, for the sake of convenience, the following facts are culled out in W.P.(MD).No.18523 of 2014, for better understanding of the case:- 2.1. The petitioner is a registered dealer on the file of the respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act,2006 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner unit is in the States of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Kerala and they are the registered dealer under the Statues of State enactment. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of clinker, cement and cement products like dry mortar mix, etc. The petitioner purchases the raw materials from local registered dealers, inter- state dealers and f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....le taxes under the respective State enactments or the Central Sales Act,1956. 2.3. While the situation stood thus, the respondent herein issued pre- revision notices for the assessment years 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 proposing to levy tax under the TNVAT Act, 2006, on the difference in sales turn over of dry motor mix and clinker as mentioned in Annual Report of the petitioner Company and the turn over reported by the petitioner in its monthly returns under the TNVAT Act,2006. The petitioner has also filed the reply on 15.06.2014 bringing to the attention of the respondent about the fact that the turn over mentioned in the Annual Report is not confined to the sales turn over in the State of Tamil Nadu alone but includes the cons....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ther states were not filed, besides the annexures to the said returns to enable the respondent to check the veracity of the monthly returns of the other states. 3. Be that as it may, now, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments submitted that, the petitioner company has collected all the copies of manual copies of returns filed before the other States. Therefore, if the matter is remitted back, the petitioner company can produce the same before the competent authority to substantiate their claim. 4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate opposed for the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner saying that the respondent issued a notice on 29.05.2014 and the petiti....