2019 (3) TMI 406

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d steel business in the name of Hikma Trader in April 2013 and due to heavy loss, they have closed down the business in June 2013. At the time of commencement of the business, they have been registered under TNVAT Act, 2006 as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act. According to the petitioner, without any basis, he received the impugned demand from the second respondent, calling upon him to pay a huge amount of Rs. 35,20,218/- as value added tax and a sum of Rs. 52,83,270/- as penalty. According to the petitioner, returns were not filed with the second respondent, since the petitioner's business was closed down within two months from the date of commencement of business. According to the petitioner, arbitrarily, the second respondent ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e date of service of the notice. No order shall be passed without being satisfied of the reasonable opportunity and adopting the following process. i) After issue of notice calling for the objections, if any further time is requested by the dealer within a period of fifteen days, it shall be examined and reply to be given to the dealer regarding granting of time or not as the case may be only if, there exists a genuine reason. ii) objections filed by the dealer on the pre assessment/revision notices shall be examined in each and every issue meticulously and speaking order shall be passed addressing the objections raised, in short, the speaking order which is complete shall be passed. iii) As the provision in the T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....efore, according to the learned Additional Government Pleader, sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned demand. The learned Additional Government Pleader would further submit that after passing of the impugned assessment order, the petitioner has also filed Form-I return before the second respondent, on 08.06.2015, wherein they have admitted the purchase of items as mentioned in the impugned demand. According to him, the petitioner cannot now say that they have not been given sufficient opportunity. 8.As seen from the circular dated 03.02.2014 issued by the Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Chennai-5, which is also not disputed by the learned Additional Government Pleader....