2020 (3) TMI 1090

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....espondents. Since common issues are involved in all these writ petitions, they are disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner has filed these writ petitions, challenging the orders dated 29.03.2016 passed by the first respondent for the respective assessment years 2007-08 to 2013-14. 3. According to the petitioner, in these writ petitions they are the manufacturer and dealer in corrugated boxes, tray etc, and is registered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. During the course of such business, inspection was conducted in the place of business of the petitioner by the Enforcement Wing Officials. On the basis of the inspection, the second respondent issued notice....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t was filed along with a representation requesting to drop the proposal. However, the first respondent has passed the impugned orders, dated 29.03.2016, levying tax along with penalty and interest. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ petitions came to be filed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes alone is entitled to direct audit of the business operations of the petitioner under Section 64 (4) of the Act and hence inspection done by the second respondent, who is below the rank of Commissioner is against the provisions of law. 6. The learned counsel further submitted that in the impugned orders, the Assessing Authority has given a tabular column wherein the transaction re....