2018 (12) TMI 1013

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssess the non declaration of the taxable turnover under Section 27(1)(a) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 and also to impose penalty under Section 27(3)(c) of the said Act for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-2014 and 2014-15. 2. Following are the short facts, which compelled the petitioner to file these writ petitions: In respect of the subject matter assessment years, a notice of proposal was issued on 14.07.2016. The petitioner made a reply on 21.07.2016 and again on 05.09.2016. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed orders of assessment on 09.09.2016 in respect of the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. However, in respect of the assessment year 2012-13, there is a deemed assessment. As per the assessment order passed by the Assessing....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d payment from CMWSSB, Chennai during the year 2012-13 but has not reported the same in the monthly returns. Therefore, it is undisclosed turnover. Hence, it is proposed to revise the turnover based on the turnover not reported. The impugned notices are within the power, authority and jurisdiction of the respondent under the provisions of Section 27(1)(a) of TNVAT Act. No assessment order was passed for the year 2012-13. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to conclude that the proposal in the notice dated 14.07.2016 is dropped for the assessment year 2012-13. As there is no refund order issued for the petitioner for the assessment year 2012-13, the contention of the petitioner that the impugned notices have been issued only with....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ontended that even though an order of assessment was passed in respect of the assessment year 2013-14 and 2014-15 on 09.09.2016, the same was issued without considering the crux of the notice issued on 14.07.2016 and the reply submitted by the petitioner on 21.07.2016. Therefore, the learned counsel contended that the impugned proceedings need not be interfered with. Even though it is stated so by the learned Government Pleader, the counter affidavits filed, apart from dealing with other merits of the matter, have also indicated that the respondent shall withdraw the notice dated 24.08.2018 and issue a fresh notice, if this Court so directs. 6. Heard both sides. 7. It is seen that in respect of these assessment years, notice of propos....