TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 313
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act). The petitioner filed their returns as per the provisions of TNVAT Act, paid the admitted tax and availed input tax credit. The petitioner filed an application in Form W claiming that they have effected zero rated sales and therefore, sought for refund for the sales during the period from January 2014 to February 2014. The said application in Form W was kept pending for nearly two years. While so, the respondent passed an order of assessment for the year 2013 14 on 28.03.2016 without reference to their application pending in Form W. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application under section 84 of the TNVAT Act for rectification of the order of assessment. While the said application was pending, the petitioner moved this Court in W.P.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th law, within two weeks thereafter. Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner for recovery of tax and penalty as computed in the impugned assessment orders." 4. W.P.No.30988 of 2016 filed for a direction to pass orders on the refund application in Form W was disposed of by a separate order dated 09.11.2016 giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order passed by the authority proposing to adjust the refund claim as against the assessments. The petitioner is now before this Court challenging the order dated 16.09.2016 under the provisions of TNVAT Act, where the authority while admitting that the petitioner is entitled for refund of Rs. 1,37,82,332/- adjusted the same as against the tax due for the year 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essment Circle, Chennai-6 (CVJ Judgment) reported in (2012) 50 VST 179, Sri Vinayaga Agencies vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT), Vadapalani-I Assessment Circle, Chennai and another (RSJ Judgment) reported in (2013) 60 VST 283 and Infinity wholesale Ltd. Assistant Commissioner (CT), Koyampedu Assessment Circle, reported in (2015) 82 VST 457) which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.No.775 of 2016. 6. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is evidently clear that the petitioner did not have an opportunity to putforth their objections to show cause as to why a deduction of a sum of Rs. 26,56,749/- is not sustainable. In the impugned order, the respondent has admitted the fact that the petitioner has filed a petition under se....