2020 (7) TMI 806

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... For the Respondents : Ms. Dhanamadri, GA. ORDER Heard Mr. S. Rajasekar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Dhanamadri, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. The petitioner herein is a dealer in electrical goods and an assessee on the file of the respondent herein. Pursuant to the filing of the monthly returns for the Assessment Year 2012-13, the r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t Rs. 46,02,434/- and the tax due at the rate of 14.5% was determined at Rs. 6,67,353/-. The said proceedings is now challenged in the present Writ Petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the respondents were factually wrong and had failed to note that the sale Invoice Nos.2071 and 2072 dated 27.12.2012 did not show the tax amount separately and that even assuming....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for the petitioner, it is seen that as against the impugned proceedings of the respondent herein, an appeal remedy lies before the Appellate Commissioner (CT), which the petitioner herein has not availed of. The grounds raised by the petitioner, are factually in nature and do not fall under any of the exceptions for them to over look the appellate remedy and invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction ....