TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 888
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by Ms.G.Dhanamadhri, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2.The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the notice for recovery of tax and penalty issued by the second respondent dated 16.04.2018 demanding a total amount of Rs. 1,23,89,34,376/- being the tax and penalty payable under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for the Assessment years 2007-09 to 2010-11. The petitioner also seek for a consequential relief to direct the second respondent to pass suitable revised Assessment Order as per the orders passed by the first respondent dated 26.10.2016. The issue which caused some concern to this Court was effect of the order passed by the first respondent dated 26.10.2016. The operati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gs levying tax at higher rate of tax treating the goods sold as unbranded goods made by Adyar Ananda Bhavan based on the Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner of Commercial Taxes letter. 2. Whether the arrears accured on revision may be eliminated. 3. Whether deviation proposals may be submitted to Deputy Commissioner Enforcement Chennai (East) based on the Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner of Commercial Taxes reference. The copies of BIU report, Deputy Commissioner (East) Enforcement proposals. High Court orders and Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner of Commercial Taxes letter are submitted for perusal and orders. 4.As could be seen from the said communication, the second respondent, being the Assessing Officer, having ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Commercial Taxes and also humbly request that the instructions issued in the letter in No.D3/28946/2016 dated 26.10.2016 may kindly be considered for withdrawal, so that further action can be followed as per the decision of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court in the pending Writ Appeal in WA.No.1444/2015 and Tvl. Adyar Ananda Bhavan Sweets India Private Ltd may be informed accordingly. I further submit with reference to the note ninth cited, against the revision of assessments, made with respect to the dealer Tvl. Zaitoon Grills and Barbeque for the years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, the dealer had filed Writ Petitions in WP.No.15561 of 2015 and WP.No.15624 of 2015 before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. The Writ Petitions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 27(3) of the TNVAT were also levied at 150% of the differential tax due which is also not in order. The revisions in this case was not owing any escapement of turnover or wrong availment of Input Tax Credit warranting revision under Section 27(1)(a) of the TNVAT Act, 2006. The revisions made falls under Section 27(1)(b) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 pertains to assessment made at lower rate than at higher rate to which it has to be assessed. All the revisions were made by assessing the reported and deemed assessed turnover at 12.5%/14.5% in-lieu of 2% and such revisions on the basis of differential rate of tax will always fall under Section 27(1) (b) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 and not under Section 27(1)(a) of the TNVAT Act, 2006. The levy of penalt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the respondent themselves. 7. The respondent was directed to file counter affidavit in the matter on account of certain observations made by this Court in its order dated 19.06.2018, wherein three questions were posed to the Department, pursuant to which an additional counter affidavit has been filed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. In sum and substance, the stand taken in the counter affidavit is that the order passed by the Commissioner dated 26.05.2016 is not binding upon the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner has not in any way usurped the powers of the Assessing Officer as statutory authority. The 1st respondent has stated that the clarification which has been made in the order dated 26.10.2016 have no legal force or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Department has understood the order dated 26.10.2016 as a positive direction for implementation. 9. The manner in which the order dated 26.10.2016 is sought to be explained in the additional counter affidavit by the Commissioner is wholly unacceptable, in the sense that the order should be read as a whole and not in a truncated fashion as done in the counter affidavit. Before looking into what has been said in the last paragraph of the order, it is necessary to read the entire narration, especially the unnumbered paragraph before the last paragraph. It is not only this Court has understood the order to the said effect, it is the subordinate officers of the Commissioner themselves have understood the same in such fashion. The Assistant....