2017 (11) TMI 1028

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s filed this writ petition challenging the Assessment Order dated 30.12.2016 for the Assessment Year 2015-16 under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act). 3. The petitioner is a dealer in Electronic Goods and has effected purchase of goods from local registered dealers to whom the petitioner has paid taxes. The petitioner was filing the monthly returns in Form K for the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2015-16 and was paying tax at 1% in terms of Section 3(4)(a) of the TNVAT Act. 4. The petitioner's place of business was inspected by the Enforcement Wing Officers on 29.12.2015 and 30.12.2015. On verification of the purchases and sales declared by the petitioner and comparing the same with MIS reports ava....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng the objections, rejected the same and passed the impugned Assessment Order. The sheet anchor of the petitioner's contention is that the alleged ratio between the purchases and sales is very high, abnormal and impossible to be accepted and the respondent could not have clubbed all the purchases and sales for the period from 2011-12 to 2015-2016 in a single Assessment year 2015-16. Further, the petitioner ought to have been given adequate opportunity to rebut the alleged discrepancies found on verification from the department website and the respondent, being Assessing Officer, should not have solely guided by the report submitted by the Enforcement Wing officials. 6. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit seeking to sustain t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al embargo under Section 7(9) r/w.Section 19(11) of the TNVAT Act. However, what I find from impugned Assessment Order is that the Assessing Officer has taken the material from the reports submitted by the Enforcement Wing officials who have come to a conclusion that the petitioner had been suppressing the sales from 2010-11 onwards and that appears to have been taken as a base figure. However, what I find is that the said alleged purchase suppression said to have been made from 2010-11 to 2015-16, could not have been clubbed together and brought on record for the Assessment year 2015-16 and making the petitioner liable for payment of tax for the single assessment year 2015-16. It would have been a different matter if the respondents have c....