TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 976
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....10.2013. After nearly two years, the Enforcement Wing conducted an inspection of the petitioner's business premises on different dates between July 2015 to September 2015. As a sequel to that, a revision notice was issued by the respondent, dated 13.10.2017. The allegation in the notice was based upon the findings recorded by the Enforcement Wing officers, who had inspected the petitioner's place of business during 2015. It is alleged that certain discrepancies has been noticed at the time of inspection, they being (i) input tax credit claim, which had been adjusted have not been maintained in the carry forward register; (ii) The petitioner's registered place of business is No.1/125, Main Road, Navammal Capper village, Thennal post and they have no other registered place of business; (iii) the place of business was inspected on 23.07.2015 and they had no stock in the registered place of business; (iv) the petitioner has stored goods worth Rs. 80,68,500/- at a place in Pulichipallam post, which is not a registered place of business at the time of inspection on 23.07.2015. It was further stated that though the petitioners have mentioned that they have applied for godown c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tive and efficacious remedy, since the impugned orders have been passed contrary to the law laid down by this Court in several decisions, apart from having been passed without granting reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner by letter dated 28.11.2014, intimated the respondent that they are opening a new godown at Thennal post, which application was received by the office of the respondent on 28.11.2014, and the requisite processing fee of Rs. 100/- was also remitted by Demand Draft. In the said letter, the petitioner has stated that they have opened the new godown w.e.f., 05.11.2014. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner by letter dated 31.07.2017, has informed the respondent that they have changed their address w.e.f., 20.07.2015, to a place in Vanur Taluk and also remitted the requisite processing fee for change of address by remitting a sum of Rs. 50/- by demand draft. The learned counsel invited my attention to the statement recorded from the partner of the petitioner by the Enforcement Wing, wherein the application given for opening of new godown and change of premises have been stated by the petitioner and these aspe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....09.2015 and the petitioner accepted the deviations and paid a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. It is submitted that the petitioner applied for registration of the godown only on 31.07.2015, much after the date of first inspection namely, 23.07.2015. Therefore, it is contended that operating from an unregistered place of business is in violation of the statutory provision and it amounts to a tax evasion practice. Thus, a letter given at a later date, that is after the commencement of the inspection, for registering the place of business is not maintainable, as Rule 5(5)(9) mandates that the registered dealer, who opens a new branch should apply to the Registering Authority with proof of payment of fees within 30 days from the date of opening of the said branch and get the certificate of the registration amended accordingly. Thus, it is submitted that the petitioner, only for the purpose of getting the benefit of 30days time limit, has falsely reported that he has started operation from an unregistered godown only from 20.07.2015 and this has not been established by producing any proof. It is further submitted that the Writ Petitions may not be entertained, as there is an appellate remedy avail....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs have been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, but it is the case where the petitioner has failed to avail the opportunity granted to them and therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own wrong. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that intimation was given to the respondent about the change of godown and in this regard referred to the letter dated 28.12.2014, wherein it is alleged that the petitioners have shifted the godown, w.e.f. 05.11.2014, and submitted the letter on 28.11.2014, and stated that they have paid the processing fee on 24.09.2014. The letter states that they are opening a new godown and it is not clear in the said letter as to which was the registered godown earlier to 28.11.2014. The second letter which was referred to by the petitioner is dated 31.07.2015, wherein the petitioner claimed that they have changed their branch address w.e.f. 20.07.2015. The processing fee has been remitted by demand draft dated 08.07.2015. To be noted is that the inspection of the petitioner's place of business was conducted on 23.07.2015 and the letter for change of branch address was admittedly give....