2017 (12) TMI 686

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g notice to the second respondent. 2. The petitioner has filed these writ petitions challenging the orders of assessment dated 31.10.2017 and 27.9.2017 under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 respectively for the years 2012-13 and 2011-12. 3. For the subsequent assessment year namely 2013-14, the first respondent passed a similar order dated 27.9.2017, which was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.28684 of 2017. This Court, after considering the submissions made on either side, partly allowed the said writ petition only with regard to two issues and remanded the matter to the first respondent for a fresh consideration. With regard to the other issues, it was left open to the petitioner to avail the remedies....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e been pointed out in the notice, as, with regard the other issues, the petitioner can very well avail the remedy under the Statute, since it requires adjudication into facts. The issues, which this Court proposes to consider, are as follows : (i) rejection of claim of exemption on payments to sub-contractors; (ii) estimated sales turnover on purchase omission. 6. In the notice dated 11.6.2015, the first respondent stated that as per Rule 8(5)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules 2007, a person, claiming exemption on payment to sub-contractors, has to produce evidence that such amount was accounted for by the sub-contractors and furnished the same in the monthly returns before the respective Assessing Office....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s as to why they are not acceptable. With regard to the first issue, the first respondent stated that in respect of the proposal for rejecting the claim of exemption on payments to sub-contractors, the dealers are not able to furnish details in complete shape and that the proposal has been properly made. With regard to the second issue, the first respondent merely stated that the reply is not satisfactory. 10. Time and again, this Court is pointing out that an order devoid of reasons is liable to be set aside. In this regard, it will be worthwhile to refer to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of (i) Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. Vs. Union of India [reported in AIR 1976 SC....