TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 160
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he second respondent in Tin No.33635564441, have been regularly filed income tax returns. He has claimed Input Tax Credit on the purchase effected from registered dealer within the State of Tamil Nadu and paid the Output Tax due to the Department after adjusting the available Input Tax Credit under Section 3(3) of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act and Tax Deducted at Source (TDS). During the assessment year 2008-2009 (TNVAT), the second respondent had originally passed the deemed assessment order by accepting returns on 05.08.2011. Subsequently, the second respondent revised his order on 01.09.2014 against which the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent. The matter was remanded vide order dated 17.06.2015. Pursuant to the same....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the assessment year 2013-2014, a demand for Rs.5,96,999/- which was adjusted with the orders passed by the assessment for the year 2008-2009. The act of the second respondent is contrary to the first respondent order dated 28.05.2019 passed in A.P.No.166 of 2018. 3. The contention of the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.17769 of 2022 is that the second respondent had originally passed the deemed assessment order by accepting returns on 03.09.2011. Subsequently, the second respondent revised his order vide order dated 01.09.2014 against which the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent and the same was remanded vide order dated 17.06.2015. Pursuant to the same, the second respondent passed the order dated 20.03.2017 showing exces....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... six years prior, now the same cannot be reopened or re-agitated. On this ground, these writ petitions have been filed. 4. Mr.P.Subbaraj, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents not disputed the return, date of order and not disputed the date of return, deemed assessment, thereafter reopening the remand and order of refund passed. Thereafter, an appeal on reassessment, it was found that the error apparent has been found on the basis of records and thereafter the appropriate credit had been considered and wherever there have been excess credit without proper consideration of records, the same has been revised. The order in challenge is a reasoned one, further the order has been passed 1 ½ years i.e., 15.02.2....