2019 (7) TMI 50

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n pertains to 'Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (Tamil Nadu Act No.32 of 2006)', hereinafter referred to as 'TNVAT Act' for the sake of brevity. 4. Writ petitioner is a Registered Dealer under TNVAT Act and writ petitioner is carrying on business as dealers in computer peripherals, accessories and Closed Circuit Televisions (CCTVs). 5. Subject matter of instant writ petition pertains to financial year 2014-2015. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for writ petitioner that monthly Returns were being filed inter-alia under Section 21 of TNVAT Act and there was deemed assessment under Section 22(2) of TNVAT Act. 7. When things stood as above, officials from the Enforcement Wing of the respondent-Department, visited th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e belief that this revised assessment order is end of the matter, but that was not to be. 14. In the aforesaid backdrop, Respondent-Department suddenly took stock of the first notice dated 30.11.2015 and writ petitioner's reply dated 31.12.2015 with regard to the same financial year, namely, 2014-2015 and straightaway passed another revised assessment order dated 30.10.2018, which also bears same reference, namely, Reference No.TIN:33280581113/2014-2015. This second revised assessment order dated 30.10.2018 has been called in question in the instant writ petition and the same shall be referred to as 'impugned order'. 15. The respondent has filed a counter-affidavit and the pivotal contention of the respondent in counter-affid....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f this Court by learned counsel for writ petitioner that the first and the second revised assessment orders have been passed by different Officers. 19. Though, writ petitioner, fairly conceded that more than one revision is permissible, under normal circumstances, revision of the same issue which has already been decided would become a vexed exercise. However, problem presents itself differently for writ petitioner in the instant case. 20. Writ petitioner, while sending the aforementioned reply dated 7.3.2017, has not mentioned anywhere that a notice was issued on 30.11.2015 and the writ petitioner has sent a reply dated 31.12.2015. The writ petitioner also has dealt with the matter afresh. 21. Notwithstanding this lapse on the part of w....