TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 1261
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ow compass, the Writ Petitions themselves are taken up for disposal. 2.The petitioner who is a registered dealer on the file of the respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 [TNVAT Act] and also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [CST Act], is involved in executing projects for construction of Reinforced Earth Walls for the approach roads leading to bridges and flyovers. These Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the orders passed by the first respondent, Revisional Authority, rejecting the Revision Petitions filed by the petitioner in R.P.Nos.35, 36, 37, 38 & 39 of 2014 and 48, 49, 50, 51 and 52 of 2014. 3.The first set of Revision Petitions were filed by the petitioner challenging the orders pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it to the tax paid, but demanded interest, by confirming the proposal as set out in the pre-revision notices. 5.Soon after the petitioner filed Writ Petitions before this Court in W.P.Nos.13626 to 13630 of 2013, challenging the Revision of Assessment for all assessment years, only with regard to the levy of interest, as entire tax had been paid as proposed in the pre-revision notices. The said Writ Petitions were disposed of by a common order dated 26.06.2013, giving liberty to the petitioner to file Revisions before the appropriate authorities under section 54 of the Act, within a time frame, with a direction to the Revisional Authority to entertain the Revision Petitions, to be disposed of on merits. The recovery proceedings for recoveri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....espondent issued separate notices dated 18.03.2014, for all the assessment years, proposing to levy penalty. The petitioner has filed objections on 19.05.2014, and no orders have been passed till date. It is seen that the Revision Petitions were filed by the petitioner through their Counsel Mr.S.P.Asokan, and due to his ill health, he did not appear before the first respondent, consequently, the first respondent passed exparte orders on all the ten Revision Petitions and dismissed the same. 8.Though the impugned orders are exparte orders, the first respondent has given certain brief reasons for rejecting the Revision Petitions. In so far as the Revision Petitions filed against the rejection of Rectification Petitions under section 84 of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs were different from the sales figures arrived at by the Enforcement Wing Officials and the difference were pointed out in a tabulated statement. Further, it was pointed out that the total of the Taxable Turnover evidenced by the accounts of the petitioner-company is more than the Taxable Turnovers arrived at by Enforcement Wing Officials and hence the same has to be adopted and that the Taxable Turnover adopted in the revised assessment orders do not match either with the figures arrived at by the Enforcement Wing Officials or the figures disclosed in the Accounts of the petitioner-company. Therefore, it was pointed out that there was an error apparent on the face of the records. Further, the petitioner also raised a contention as to how....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e decision, rejected the Revision Petitions only on the ground that the Rectification Applications were filed before the second respondent, eleven months after the assessments were completed. That cannot hardly be a reason to reject the Revision Petitions, since there is no limitation provided under the Act for filing a Revision Petition under section 84 of the TNVAT Act. However, for some valid reasons, the Revisional Authority found that the dealer had adopted dilatory tactics with mala fide intentions, then it would have been a different matter. However, there is no such findings on the aspect of delay. Therefore, the rejection of the Revision Petitions holding that the Petitions for Rectification filed under section 84 of the TNVAT Act,....