2020 (11) TMI 661

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....contention of the petitioner that the respondent had sent a pre assessment notice on 07.02.2018 informing three defects:- The first defect is purchase omission committed by the petitioner, the second defect is sales suppression and the third defect is mismatch between the sales and purchases. 3.It was pointed out by the respondent in their pre assessment notice dated 07.02.2018 that the above defects were found by them during inspection by their Enforcement Wing Officials on 23.02.2017 at the business premises of the petitioner. The petitioner has sent a reply dated 07.03.2018 to the pre assessment notice dated 07.02.2018, wherein, they have categorically submitted that the nature of the business is cargo handling and they are license hol....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....drew the attention of this Court to the impugned assessment order. Relying upon the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that by total non application of mind to the reply dated 07.03.2018, the impugned assessment order has been passed. 7.Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would submit that there is a statutory appellate remedy available to the petitioner as against the impugned assessment order under TNVAT Act, 2006. Instead of filing the statutory appeal, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition which is not maintainable. It is also her contention that the reply sent by the petitioner has been duly considered by the respondent while passing the impugned assessmen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....reply dated 07.03.2018, the petitioner had categorically denied the allegations of the respondent by giving the following reasons:- (a). They are not dealers in Tipper Body. The Tipper Body is purchased only for the purpose of cargo handling and it is only an asset purchased for their company. This was the reason for not showing the said purchases in their monthly Form I returns. (b) In respect of the defect, the verification of the check post data through departmental website is concerned, they have submitted that the movement of goods is a part of front loader which was under use in Cargo handling and sent for repair to their Head office at Mangalore Work Shop for replacement. According to them, at the time of movement of the goods, t....