TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 1397
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court. 2. With consent of learned counsel on both sides, main writ petitions are taken up, heard out and are being disposed of. 3. Learned counsel on both sides would submit that core issue / central theme in these five writ petitions is the same and only the Assessment Years are different. Obviously, the numerical values are also different. 4. Considering the trajectory of the hearings on 16.07.2019 and today (19.07.2019), these writ petitions now turn on a very narrow compass and therefore, it is not necessary to advert to facts in great detail. 5. Short facts shorn of elaboration, particulars / details have been captured by this Court in the earlier proceedings dated 16.07.2019, which reads as follows: 'Mr.K.Soundara Rajan, lea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessment Order. One issue pertains to discounts given to the writ petitioner as writ petitioner is stockist for various products. It is pointed out that such discounts cannot be included in turnover in the light of definition of 'turnover' under Section 2(41) of TNVAT Act and more particularly, Clause (ii) of Explanation I thereto, which reads as follows: '2(41)....... Explanation I...... Explanation II....... (i)...... (ii) any cash or other discount on the price allowed in respect of any sale and any amount refunded in respect of articles returned by customers shall not be included in the turnover.'' 8. The other issue is that of mismatch qua purchases made by the writ petitioner and 'Input Tax Credit&#....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....incumbent officer, who passed the impugned orders. 7. Learned Revenue counsel after getting instructions, submits today that the files reveal that a deviation proposal was infact sent by the predecessor of the incumbent, who passed the impugned orders. 8. Though photocopies of relevant parts of the file were placed before Court, as they are intra office communications, this Court deems it appropriate to not to advert to the same and this Court is of the considered view that it will suffice to say that there has been a deviation proposal qua proposal made by Enforcement Wing officials, which has been sent by the predecessor of the incumbent, who passed the impugned orders. 9. In this regard, paragraph 10 of previous proceedings, which has....