2016 (4) TMI 436

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... content, astrology, deals and offers etc., through e commerce, is a registered delaer under Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner and the business segment of Times of India, which is run by M/s.Bennett Coleman and Company Ltd., are operated at the same premises at No.126/127, Chamiers Road, Nandanam, Chennai 600 035 as the petitioner is subsidiary of M/s.Bennett Coleman and Company Ltd. A spot inspection was carried out by VAT authorities at the registered place of business and in consequence of inspection, the petitioner was issued with a notice dated 10.11.2014 under Section 22(2) of Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 alleging that the credit payments amounting to Rs. 14,81,408/- reflected i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... received from the office of the 2nd respondent, the certified order copy was sent by registered post on 12.3.2015 to the petitioner's Chennai address, till date, the petitioner has not received any certified copy from the 2nd respondent through registered post. Hence the petitioner was not able to file appeal under section 51 of the Act within 30 days of the receipt of order copy before the Appellate Authority. Thereafter, the petitioner's authorised representative received a photo copy of the order 12.3.2015 by hand on 27.5.2015. Whileso, the 2nd respondent issued notice dated 28.5.2015 attaching the bank account of the petitioner and on coming to know the same, the petitioner immediately informed the 2nd respondent by letter date....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appeal available under law, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the registered post claimed to be sent by the 2nd respondent has never been received by the petitioner and hence the action of the 2nd respondent issuing notice dated 15.9.2015 stating that the assessment order was served upon the petitioner on 27.5.2015, since RPAD sent on 20.3.2015 was not received by the petitioner is not correct. He further submitted that the petitioner has strong grounds on merits to set aside the order dated 12.3.2015 before the Appellate Authority, however, due to the conduct of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner is unable to avail the statutory legal remedies. 5. The learned Additional Govern....