2020 (4) TMI 4

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....No.33050702247/2013-14 and TIN No.33050702247/2014-15 and the consequential impugned proceedings dated 23.03.2016. 3. The petitioner is a trader in UPS. The petitioner's place of business was inspected and audited under Section 65 of the TNVAT Act, 2006. Pursuant to the audit, the petitioner was issued with four separate notices for the Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 on 23.09.2015. The said Notices culminated in the impugned orders dated 01.12.2015 for the respective Assessment Years. 4. Prior to passing orders, the petitioner was issued with notices dated 23.09.2015 to file supporting documents along with its submission. The petitioner also filed its common reply to the said notices on 05.11.2015. An opportunity f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2013 SCC OnLine Mad 323 and in Althajf Shoes (P) Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT), Valluvarkottam Assessment Circle, Chennai, 2011 SCC OnLine Mad 2683. 9. In Vinayaga Agencies Vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT), Vadapalani Assessment Circle, Chennai and Another, 2013 SCC OnLine Mad 323, this Court held as follows:- "The dealer states that the sellers are still existing and doing business at Palayamkottai. If it is so what prevented them from discussing the issue with them and take the remedial measures. Finally, inasmuch as the facts remain that tax collected had not been paid by the seller and ITC was availed wrongly by the dealer at this end, law states that it has to be reversed as per the provision contained in Section 19(16) of T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... orders are liable to be set aside. 10. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent submits that the impugned orders are well reasoned and require no interference. He further submits that the petitioner has an alternate remedy by way of appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner under the provisions of the TNVAT Act, 2006. Therefore, the present Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. 11. I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner and the respondent. 12. This Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not sitting as an Appellate Court to examine the merits and demerits of claim of the petitioner. These are disputed questions of facts....