2023 (3) TMI 732

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of assessment passed under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006 (in short, 'the Act') for the period 2009 - 2010 to 2013 - 2014. 2. The petitioner is a dealer under the provisions of the Act, a civil work contractor. Monthly returns have been filed in respect of the periods in question. The stand taken by the petitioner therein for arriving at the turnover is based on purchases effected. This is an accepted modus operandi for arriving at the turnover in the cases of civil works contractors, since several projects would run simultaneously for different periods of time. Hence one of the methods that is accepted both by Industry as well as by the Commercial Taxes Department is to arrive at the turnover based on the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sued on 26.04.2016 proposing a variation to the computation of turnover as noticed in the preceding paragraphs. The petitioner objected by way of reply. Upon change of Officer, a revised second notice was issued on 07.02.2019 to which also, a response was issued. There was yet again a change in Officer and notices were sent on 19.02.2019 and 25.02.2019, to which replies were sent by the petitioner. All three Officers have proceeded on the basis that the rate of GP should be as adopted in the Income-tax proceedings, varying at rates between 19 to 31%. 7. While this is so, and it would have been appropriate for the officer who was third and last in the series of Assessing Officers to hear the petitioner and pass an order, it is the second of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unsel, my decision is as follows. Adverting to the aspect of procedure first, while it might be true that it was the second officer who had been the proper officer holding jurisdiction, to have passed the impugned order, I do not agree with the respondent that he could have dispensed with necessity for personal hearing. 12. Undoubtedly, Section 27 does not provide or mandate an opportunity of personal hearing as does the proviso to Section 22(4). There is thus a statutory difference. However, in all matters where the issue that arises for consideration requires a deliberation between the parties, it is incumbent upon the Officer to have called upon the petitioner to explain its stand. 13. The issue in this case relates to adoption of Gros....