AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 1215
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dealer under Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (herein after referred to as the Act). According to the petitioner, a pre-revision notice, dated 06.04.2015 has been issued by the second respondent under Section 27 of the Act, which was suitably replied by him in his letter dated 08.05.2015. According to the petitioner, the basis for issuing pre-revision petition under Section 27 of the Act, was that (a)the sale value was found lesser than the purchase value of the goods. (b)The petitioner has sold the goods without any value addition in respect of goods taxable at 14.5%. However, in respect of taxable goods at 5%, they are inferred that the petitioner has not disclosed the sales made out of the net purchase value of Rs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roposed to determine the total estimated sale value to the best of judgment assessment. 5.Therefore, according to the petitioner, the second respondent has not added normal gross profit at 10%, even as per their own proposal to revise the assessment, will go to show that the petitioner had obtained profit. According to the petitioner, as seen from his reply, the second respondent cannot take two different stands in the same assessment proceedings and that too for the same transaction between the same parties. In the reply, they have also stated that they are not having separate inventories for goods taxable at 14.5% and 5%. According to the petitioner, the ratio adopted by the second respondent under the pre-revision notice is not warran....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 31.07.2015, despite the objection raised by the petitioner, the second respondent reversed the input tax credit and directed the petitioner to pay tax of Rs. 8,83,794/- and penalty of Rs. 6,61,303/- for the assessment year 2013-14. Aggrieved over the impugned assessment order, the instant writ petition has been filed. 9.Heard Mr.B.Rooban, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.Muruganantham, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. 10.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not been afforded adequate opportunity by the second respondent before passing of the impugned assessment order. The learned Counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to Section 24(1) of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng dealers as well as not to disturb the tax already paid by the selling dealer." 12.Referring to the above rule, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the tax component cannot be disturbed and the discount in the invoice cannot be added to the total turnover. He also relied upon Section 19(20) of the Act, which reads as follows: "Section 19: Input Tax Credit: (20)Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, where any registered dealer has sold goods at a price lesser than the price of the goods purchased by him, the amount of the input tax credit over and above the output tax of those goods shall be reversed." 13.He further submitted that as per the above referred provision, only when the entire goods ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... But, under the impugned assessment order, this Court finds that all the objections raised by the petitioner were not considered by the second respondent. 16.It is the case of the petitioner that he has shown gross profit while filing his monthly returns before the second respondent. But without application of mind, the second respondent has come to a wrong conclusion that the goods sold by the petitioner at a lesser price than the purchase price and the petitioner has shown losses in the monthly return submitted by him. This Court is also unable to find out from the assessment order as to why the second respondent has come to that conclusion, despite the fact that the petitioner is a profit making concern and has also disclosed gross....