TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 844
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e same as being contrary to the principle laid down by this honourable court in the judgement reported in [2006] 146 STC 642 (Mad) (Madras Granites (P) Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer,Arisipalayam Circle,Salem) and further direct the respondent to pass order afresh in accordance with the principle laid down by this honourable court in the judgment reported in [2004-05] 10 TNCTJ 168 (M. Krishnaswamy v. The Registrar,Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal,Chennai). 2. According to the petitioner,they are registered dealer and are assessee on the file of the respondent. The petitioner dealt with electrical goods. During the course of their business the petitioner reported a total taxable turnover of Rs. 94,27,521,for the assessment year 2005-06 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpugned orders are legally not sustainable and they are liable to be quashed. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that on receipt of notice from the second respondent,after getting copies of the D7 records,the petitioner sought one month time for production of accounts. However,the respondent neither granted time as sought for by the petitioner nor rejected such request made by the petitioner. However,after eight months,the respondent passed the impugned order revising the taxable turnover of the petitioner and called upon the petitioner to pay the balance taxable amount with penalty. Therefore,according to the learned counsel for the petitioner,the impugned orders are in violation of principles of nature of justice and o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sales turnover that was suppressed by then. 6. Further,the assessing authority issued notices of revision for the year 2003-04 and 2004-05 based on the D3 proposals for the year 2005-06 and then issued pre-assessment notice incorporating the taxable sales turnover suggested in the D3 proposal (notice dated July 30,2007) and on receipt of the notice the dealers filed a letter dated September 6,2007 requesting to issue the xerox copies of the D7 records. The xerox copies of D7 records were issued to the dealers on October 9,2007 after getting permission from the Deputy Commissioner (CT),Namakkal. After receipt of the copies of D7 records the dealers sent a letter on October 10,2007 requesting one month time to produce the accounts for the ye....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... nature of justice. 10. This court has also inclined to pass the same order in these writ petitions as well. At this juncture,it has to be pointed out that even though the petitioner has written the letter dated October 10,2007 to the respondent seeking one month time for furnishing the reconcile statement of accounts,the petitioner neither made any further representation nor produced the records to the respondent,instead the petitioner waited to hear from the respondent,till the respondent passed the impugned orders. Therefore,it is evident that the petitioner has also to be blamed as they did not furnish the reconcile statement to the respondent on their own. Therefore,while setting aside the orders impugned in these writ petitions on th....