2015 (7) TMI 1055

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tant Commissioner (CT), Royapettah Assessment Circle, Chennai, for the Assessment Year 2007-08. By this impugned order, the assessment was revised under section 27(3) of the TNVAT Act by levying tax in addition to the output tax already declared in the monthly returns, and imposed penalty. 4. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it is stated that the petitioner is a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act and is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner was engaged in the business of execution of works contracts for the TWAD Board, Chennai, and turnkey projects for the provision of water supply as well as other works.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....et aside. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the grievance of the petitioner is that the notice for reassessment was issued as early as on 4.4.2013 and after filing detailed objections on 14.3.2013 and various personal hearings, a detailed reply was filed on 7.6.2013. Therefore, the petitioner was under the impression that after he filed the objections, the re-assessment proceedings was dropped. There is a delay of two years in passing the impugned assessment order after issuance of notice. It is a peculiar case where notice was issued by one personnel and assessment order was passed by another personnel, which is clearly contrary to the settled principles of natural justice. The respondent has wrongly....