2019 (3) TMI 1213

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed by the respondent in TIN Nos.33335444520/ 2013-14, 33335444520/ 2014-15, 33335444520/ 2015-16 and 33335444520/ 2016-17, respectively. 3.It is the case of the petitioner that they are a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act (TNVAT Act), 2006 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act']. According to the petitioner, the returns filed for the assessment years, 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 and 2016-2017, were accepted by the respondent under Section 22(2) of the TNVAT Act, 2006. 4.It is the case of the petitioner that based on the report dated 25.01.2017 of the Enforcement Wing Officers of the respondent, the respondent initiated revision of assessment proceedings under Section 27(1) of the Act for the years 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....veral objections raised against the impugned assessment orders, the final orders have been passed without granting an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, which is mandatory. In such circumstances, the Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the impugned assessment orders. 7.Heard Mr.N.Inbarajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Jeyakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 8.As seen from the impugned assessment orders, the assessment of the total taxable turnover of the petitioner was done by the respondent only for a period of nine months under Section 22(2) of the TNVAT Act, 2006. The assessment will have to be done for the whole year. Section 22(2) of the TNVAT....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Enforcement Wing Officers is incorrect and not in accordance with the provisions of Section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, the respondent should have considered the same objectively before passing the impugned assessment orders. 10.Even though the petitioner had furnished all the details and supporting documents in support of their objections in the impugned assessment orders, the same has not been duly considered by the respondent objectively. Instead they have verbatim reproduced the sales figures contained in the inspection report dated 25.01.2017 of the Enforcement Wing Officers of the respondent. 11.Admittedly, in the instant case, it has been seen from the impugned assessment orders that no personal hearin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as not been considered by the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a Single Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner (CT)-II, Large Tax Payers Unit, Egmore, Chennai and another reported in [2016] 95 VST 296 (Mad). The relevant paragraph of the said Judgment is extracted hereunder:- "...16.In my view the report of the enforcement officer could at best be treated, as a first information report gathered based on audit in the place of business of the dealer. If such is the report, it can be only a prima facie material to initiate action in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The first information report is not a conclusive proof of a wrong having ....