TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 1146
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t petition is filed challenging the order of assessment dated 31.03.2017 passed by the respondent relevant to the assessment year 2015- 2016. 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: The petitioner is a registered dealer dealing with works contract. The original assessment for the year 2015-2016 was completed by the respondent under Section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere will not be any further proceedings. However, the impugned order was passed on 31.03.2017 imposing penalty on the petitioner amounting to Rs. 1,22,317/-. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed before this Court with the relief as stated supra. 3. A counter affidavit is filed by the respondent, wherein, it is stated that the dealer had admitted the suppression during the time of inspect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s admitted the liability and paid the tax at the time of inspection and therefore, penalty was rightly imposed on the petitioner. 6. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed before this Court. 7. It is seen that in pursuant to the deemed assessment that had taken place under Section 22(2) of the TNVAT Act, 2006, relevant to the assessment year 2015-2016, the Enforcement Wing Officials i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he merits of such claim made by the petitioner, as it is for the Assessing Officer to consider and decide the same. When penalty is sought to be imposed, the Assessing Officer has to specifically give finding that the sale suppression was willful and deliberate. Since I find that no such finding is given in this case, I am inclined to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer to reconsider th....