2019 (3) TMI 1022

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and he has filed his annual returns and the same has been accepted by the second respondent under Section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. According to the petitioner, the second respondent proposed to revise the assessment under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, 2006, under the pre-revision notice dated 29.06.2016. According to the petitioner, a detailed reply dated 26.07.2016 was sent by him raising objections. According to the petitioner, for the fault of the other end seller for non-reporting of sales to the respondents, the petitioner who is a purchaser cannot be made liable to pay tax. It is their case that all the purchases effected by them have been reported to the second r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as to be quashed. 5.The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents would submit that there is an alternative efficacious appellate remedy available to the petitioner as against the impugned assessment order under Section 51 of the 'Act' and therefore this Writ Petition is not maintainable. Further, it is his case that personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner by the respondents and based on the details and vouchers submitted by the petitioner to the respondents, tax was also reduced under the impugned assessment order. According to the learned Additional Government Pleader, having considered all the objections raised by the petitioner under the impugned assessment order and having granted the right of persona....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... action lies against such a defaulting seller but not against the purchaser. Obviously, the error, if any is not attributable to the writ petitioner/dealer in claiming I.T.C. Based upon the invoice generated by its seller, but it is liable against the so-called seller. Instead of trying to cross verify the I.T.C. Availed of by the petitioner with specific reference to each one component, action is directed by the assessing officer against the writ petitioner/dealer. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge (Inifiniti Wholesale Limited Vs.Assistant Commissioner (CT) [2015] 82 VST 457 (Mad)) rightly interfered with, in exercising jurisdiction by setting aside the order of the assessing officer which is prima facie against the princip....