2020 (12) TMI 1123

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e respondent. 3. These Writ Petitions have been filed against the revision of assessment orders passed under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, against the petitioner, all dated 28.11.2018, for the assessment years from 2006-07 to 2014-15. 4. The prime ground for challenge to the impugned assessment orders made by the petitioner is that the impugned revision of assessment orders have been passed solely on the basis of the Enforcement Wing Officers' report and proposals. According to the petitioner, without verifying the petitioner's books of accounts, the respondent has proposed to revise the petitioner's completed assessment and has also revised the same under the impugned assessment orders. 5. In ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssment proceedings and personal hearing was also afforded. According to them, the onus and burden of proof will lie on the dealer under Section 17(2) of TNVAT Act, 2006 and it is their case that even though several details, such as name of seller with their TIN, sales turnover and purchase turnover have been furnished to the dealer(petitioner) at the time of issuing notice, the dealer (petitioner) has failed to prove and reconcile the transactions with available details made between the seller and dealer (petitioner), who is the buyer of goods. 8. The decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the case of JKM Graphics Solutions Private Limited vs The Commercial Tax Officer, Vepery Assessment Circle, reported in (20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mpleted assessment under Section 27 of TNVAT Act, 2006, they have undertaken to cooperate with the respondent by furnishing all the records/books of accounts, called for by the respondent. In all the replies sent by the petitioner to the respondent, they have also referred to the decision of this Court referred to supra, reported in (2017) 99 VST 343 (Mad). However, as seen from the impugned assessment orders, the respondent has not adhered to the settled procedure laid down by this Court, while passing the impugned assessment orders under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, 2006. 10. The counter affidavit filed by the respondent has not answered the grounds raised by the petitioner that the impugned assessment orders have been passed in a mech....