2016 (10) TMI 145

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. These writ petitions can be segregated into two groups viz., the first set of cases in WP.Nos.18847 to 18849 of 2016 which relate to the assessment years 2007-2008, 2008 to 2009-2010 under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act); and WP.Nos.18850 & 18851 of 2016 pertain to the assessment years 2011-2011 and 2011-2012 under the TNVAT Act. The impugned orders have been challenged on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, this Court has taken up for consideration as to the validity and the propriety of the impugned orders. If this Court was called upon to exercise its jurisdiction to examine the factual aspects, this Court would have definitely relegated the petitioner to avai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n manufacturing jewellery. Alternatively it is stated that the respondent should not adopt an arbitrary ad hoc percentage of 8% as process loss. While so, on 13.11.2013, the Assistant Commissioner (CT) conducted a VAT Audit for the period from 2007-2008 to 2013-2014. It is thereafter the petitioner on 02.12.2013 submitted his reply to the notice dated 15.04.2013 proposing to reverse the input tax credit under Section 19(2) stating that no part of inputs purchased inside the State of Tamil Nadu is transferred outside the State for use in manufacturing activity outside the State. After about two years, on 31.08.2015, VAT Audit was conducted and based on which, the respondent issued a notice on 25.10.2015, proposing to reverse the input tax cr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to the learned Special Government Pleader [Taxes], the same is reiterated and in paragraph 2, it is stated that the petitioner did not ask for personal hearing. It is seen that it is not in dispute that the matter was dealt with by the respondent's predecessors and the respondent has entered into the picture during October 2015. It is not clear as to whether the respondent wanted to pursue the notices dated 15.04.2013, 06.11.2015, 21.12.2015 and according to the petitioner, the respondent did not pursue such notices. Thus, when such conflicting issues are involved, the authority ought to have directed the petitioner to appear in person and explain the transaction, especially, when they were called upon to furnish the documents and they ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the question of adopting a uniform or ad hoc percentage cannot be resorted to. These observations and directions were made bearing in mind that each assessment proceedings is an independent proceedings and the Assessing Officer cannot ignore facts. It was pointed out that whether a loss was an invisible loss or whether it was a destructive loss or whether it would fall within any one of the parameters specified in sub-section 9 to section 19, all being questions of fact, have to be established by the dealer when called upon by the authority. However, to decide the question, first of all the respondent should have called upon the dealer to explain their process and furnish all their books of accounts. Thus, the assessment proceedings having....