TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 657
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t order on the ground that it is ex-facie, arbitrary and illegal and amounts to gross violation of principles of natural justice. 2. Heard Mr.B.Rooban, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs.J.Padmavathi Devi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that to the pre-assessment notice dated 16.10.2019, the petitioner had sent a detailed reply on 18.10.2019, raising various objections. The objections included the following:- "He is ready and willing to produce books of accounts and he has claimed only the eligible input tax credit under GSTR-3B returns filed by him with the respondent." 4. It is the contention of the petitioner that despite sending replies o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stered in respect of the lost books of accounts. Therefore, according to her, the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner is always ready and willing to furnish books of accounts is incorrect. 7. This Court has perused and examined the impugned assessment order as well as the objections raised by the petitioner before the respondents. The petitioner has sent replies to the notices sent by the respondents on 10.10.2019, 11.10.2019 and 18.10.2019. In all those replies, the petitioner has always expressed his readiness and willingness to produce books of accounts. In the impugned assessment order, the respondents have observed that at the time of inspection conducted on 10.09.2019 and 16.09.2019, in the business premises of the petit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unts, were not considered in the impugned assessment order. But the impugned assessment order only based on the alleged deposition made by the petitioner before the Inspecting Officials that they are not maintaining books of accounts without any independent assessment. This Court has also perused and examined the various replies sent by the petitioner and as seen from the said replies, there is no admission on the part of the petitioner that they were not maintaining books of accounts at the time when the Inspecting Offiicials visited the petitioner's place of business. 10. It is also the contention of the petitioner that they have claimed only the eligible input tax credit and there is no bogus claim. However, as seen from the impugne....