2016 (2) TMI 136

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 3.1 The petitioner is a partnership firm, carrying on the business in II Schedule goods under the Act as dealer of M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited for Kerosene, Petrol for Public Distribution System and diesel. The sales tax return with respect to Kerosene, Petrol and Diesel had to be returned in form J and the other goods namely Oil had to be returned in Form I under the Act. It is the case of the petitioner that one Mr.Kamalakumar, who was authorised person, incharge of the entire activities of the firm, fell sick due to renal failure and was indisposed of and finally expired on 26.12.2012, after prolonged illness. During the said illness, the entire commercial activities of the firm viz., filing of monthly returns and payment o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n of assessment under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, on the basis of undisclosed purchases made by the petitioner from BPCL collected from the web-site of the commercial tax department, along with penalty. It is the further case of the petitioner that after detection of the deceit and fraud committed by the erstwhile staff, the return in form J for the entire year disclosing the sales of the II schedule goods were filed on 19.06.2013 and annual revised return in form I-1 was filed on 17.06.2013 even before ignition of revision of assessment or any audit with available records as on the said date. 3.4 According to the petitioner, since they were not aware of the proceedings regarding the revision of assessment, no objection was filed and th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the learned counsel, sale of kerosene falling under Code No.2072 is not taxable at the hands of the petitioner, since it is for the supply in the public distribution system. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order of the respondent is contrary to law and hence the same is liable to be set aside. Based on these, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order. 5. The learned Additional Government Pleader, on the other hand would submit that only after service of notice, the impugned order came to be passed and hence there is no illegality committed by the respondent and the impugned order is sustainable. 6. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner would submi....