2016 (6) TMI 749

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Private Limited Company, incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and registered as a dealer, on the file of the respondent, under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, (TNVAT Act), and under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (CST Act). The petitioner is a manufacturer of finished leather, leather products and shoes and in the course of business effected local sales, inter state sales and also exports. The challenge in these writ petitions are to the revision of assessment passed by the respondent for six years (i.e. from 2007-08 to 2012-13). The impugned orders in all these writ petitions are on identical lines and therefore, it would be suffice to refer to the factual details raised in the first Writ Petition, namely, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the typed set of papers, it is seen that the details were web reports pertaining to the cross verification of buyer and seller. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Web report does not contain the invoice number. On receipt of the details for all the assessment years, the petitioner filed individual replies on 27.06.2014 pointing out that some of their sellers filed monthly VAT returns along with Annexure II manually and others filed the same electronically. The Annexures II filed electronically only found place in the website. The Annexures II filed manually do not find place in the website. Further, the filing of returns electronically by all dealers came into force with effect from 15th May 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t has passed the impugned order of revision of assessment for all the six years. As pointed out earlier, the only issue which is being agitated by the petitioner in all these cases pertain to the difference in claim of ITC as per Annexure-I of the dealer with that of the Annexure-II of the other dealers. On perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that after referring to the averments made in the show cause notice, the respondent has extracted the objections given by the petitioner and while taking note of the fact that the proposals under others heads had been accepted by the petitioner, the respondent took up the issue with regard to the difference in claim of ITC. However, the respondent did not give any specific reasoning as to why the....