TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 582
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rsonal hearing and consider the relevant records and representation dated 27.12.2016 of the petitioner and thereafter to pass fresh order. 2.From the Assessment year 2011-12 to 2014-15, for each assessment year, separate writ petitions are filed with the aforesaid prayer in these batch of cases. 3.Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice for the respondent. Heard both sides. At the consent of the learned counsel for both sides, the writ petitions themselves are taken up for final disposal. 4.The petitioner is an Assessee under the respondent. For the said assessment years that is from 2011-12 to 2014-15, assessment has already been made. However, the respondent by notices dated 23.05.2016 issued notices for r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....yer and seller as per Annexure-I revealed that the Assessee had claimed certain amount as ITC, but the other end dealers have not paid VAT as per Annexure-II of the sellers. Therefore, it was proposed to reverse the ITC under Section 19(16) of the TNVAT Act, 2006. 7.The learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that no doubt Section 19(16) has given such powers to the authorities for reversal of ITC, but once such proposal is mooted by way of notice, as has been issued in this case on 23.05.2016, the actual discrepancies as found by the inspection team for verification of the web report, has to be furnished in detail, then only, the Assessee will be in a position to respond the same by the item-wise discrepancy if any. In th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he department concerned to verify the discrepancy allegedly shown by the department in item-wise transaction between Annexures I and II, the same cannot be the suitable defence to the Assessee concerned and in this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even though the petitioner has collected all the details and was able to present the same before the authorities and in fact, the petitioner had sent a detailed representation with all such details and particulars on 26.12.2016 before which since the impugned orders have been passed, the petitioner has come out with the present writ petitions as the respondent had no occasion to consider these details furnished by the petitioner on 26.12.2016. 9.The learned Additio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the said rival submission made by the learned counsel for both sides as well as the materials placed before this Court for perusal. 13.No doubt, power has been vested in the department under Section 19(16) of the TN VAT Act, 2006, whereby reversal of ITC can be made by the department. Therefore, this Court cannot find fault with the proposal by way of notice for reversal issued by the department on 23.05.2016, where 15 days time was given to the petitioner and personal hearing date was also given. Even though only 15 days time was given to the petitioner and within the said time, the petitioner since has not responded, it is for the department to decide the same on merits with available records and to pass final order. However, in this cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are discrepancies between the entries in Annexures I and II. Ultimately, the petitioner though was able to collect the details, the same could not be furnished immediately, as within which since the two weeks time finally granted by the department ended at the last week of November 2016, the present impugned orders were passed on 30.11.2016. Only subsequently, the petitioner had given a detailed representation to the department on 27.12.2016 which is nearly about 20 pages, where so many details have been given, but the department had no occasion to consider all these details, as the same could not have been filed by the petitioner before the authority prior to the passing of the impugned orders. 15.In view of the said facts and circumstan....