2018 (2) TMI 1477

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing a revision under Section 54 of TNVAT Act within 30 days from the date on which the order had been served on the petitioner and the Revisional Authority was clothed with the power to excuse the delay in filing such revision for another period of 30 days thereafter, which had lapsed on 06.03.2011 in the present case. It is pointed out that the said remedy had not been availed and instead the petitioner has approached this Court only on 22.03.2011, after that period had lapsed. 3. When confronted with the aforesaid question of limitation in entertaining the writ petition impeded by statute and explain the error in the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mraj Hardwares". Hence, we submit that the payment of tax of Rs. 3,08,727 was adjusted as per VAT Rule 7(a) (i) in FORM - I for October 2010. Hence there is no omission or suppression while submitting our Monthly VAT RETURN. Further, we state that the above said amount was not mentioned in the Adjustment column of Advance tax in the E-Return for October 2010 by inadvertently. We regret for this mistake. Therefore, we request your kindself that the tax paid during the Audit of Rs. 3,08,727/- may kindly be allowed as Advance Tax and adjusted accordingly." 6.On a perusal of the impugned order, it is noticed that the aforesaid objection by the petitioner had been duly considered the same and findings in that regard has been rendered, whic....