TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (1) TMI 1051
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed Special Government Pleader for the first respondent/Department. 3.The appellant filed the said writ petition challenging the order of assessment dated 10.09.2015, passed under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, for the assessment year 2014-15. 4.The appellant's case is that he is not the Proprietor of M/s.Rajaram Lamp House and his father, Mr.Jodharam, was running the said business in Shop No.5, Kasi Chetty Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai-600 079. 5.The appellant would state that the place of business was inspected by the Officials of the Enforcement Wing on 15.10.2014, and certain defects were pointed out and the appellant's father was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,45,850/- towards tax in respect of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... disputed and the Department would state that no such intimation was given to the Department about the closure of the business. 10.The Department would further state that the appellant was carrying on the business and therefore, he is liable to clear the arrears of tax and penalty. Further, demand notices were served as early as on 14.12.2017 and 18.12.2017, and the stand taken by the appellant in the writ petition is wholly unsustainable. Further, the appellant, having been involved in the business along with his father, he is jointly and severally liable to pay the dues payable by his father and he cannot escape by contending that he has got nothing to do with the business. 11.Taking note of the submissions made on either side, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d filed a report through e-mail dated 07.10.2020, annexing photographs, which showed that the entity was functioning and carrying on business in the same address. Therefore, the learned Writ Court held that there is no jurisdiction whatsoever to entertain the writ petition, as the delay between 2015 and the date of passing the order in the writ petition remained unexplained. That apart, the learned Writ Court found that the explanation, given by the appellant with regard to the delay, was factually incorrect. With the above reasoning, the writ petition was dismissed. 14.Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the stand taken before the learned Writ Court and submitted that the appellant cannot be proceeded with. As no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the dealer, continued to remain valid and part payment was made by the dealer, which was given credit to in the assessment order. As could be seen from the computation given in the assessment order dated 10.09.2015, as against the total tax demand of Rs. 10,54,509/-, a sum of Rs. 1,53,943/- has been paid and the balance amount payable is Rs. 9,00,566/-. The penalty was calculated at Rs. 15,81,763/- at 150% of the tax due of which, a sum of Rs. 2,30,915/- was paid and the balance payable is Rs. 13,50,848/-. Therefore, the case, as projected by the appellant, having been found to be false by the learned Writ Court, after directing an inspection to be conducted, we find there is no justifiable ground made out by the appellant to interfere ....