TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 933
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... petitioner has suffered assessment orders dated 29.05.2017 for the assessment year 2012-2013 and 2015-2016 and an assessment order dated 02.06.2017 for the assessment year 2013-2014. 3. The following three issues were the subject matter of these three assessment orders: (i)Demand under Section 19(2)(v) of the TNVAT Act, (ii)Invisible loss and (iii)Deficit stock. 4. The petitioner challenged the same before this Court in W.P.Nos.16000 to 16004 of 2017. This Court passed an order dated 18.09.2017 at the time of admission and set aside the orders and remitted back to the respondents to pass fresh order. The said order was passed after hearing the counsel for petitioner and respondents. The issues involved are ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tamil Nadu And Another. Therefore as on date, the said order holds good. Thus, on the second aspect also, the assessment requires to be re-done." 6. In paragraph No.8, this Court set aside the assessment orders impugned in these Writ Petitions. Thereafter, the respondent issued fresh pre-revision notices for these assessment years on 09.03.2021 while dropping the demand in so far as 19(2)(v) of the TNVAT Act in view of the decision of the learned Single Judge in Everest Industries Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another. 7. The petitioner filed a common objection which ultimately culminated in assessment orders dated 08.06.2021 for these assessment years. In all these orders, issue was confined only to invisible loss which was su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, which arises for consideration in the matters,are as follows:- (i) whether the percentage of loss of materials (invisible loss) as computed by the respondent is correct; and (ii) with regard to effect of Section 19(2)(5)* [*19(2)(v)] of the Act." and therefore, the orders that were passed by this Court should be confined only to the extent of only two issues remanding the case back to the Assessing Officer and thus, in absence of a challenge to the assessment order dated 29.05.2017 and 02.06.2017 for these assessment years, qua deficit stock stood crystallised and therefore, the impugned demand notice have been issued to the petitioner. 12. It is submitted that the precisely for this reason, the subsequent revisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the impugned orders were set aside and case was remitted back. The Department also did not choose to issue further prerevision notice on deficit stock which culminated in the subsequent orders referred to supra. 16. The issue relating to the stock deficit has not been addressed after the order was set aside by this Court on 18.09.2017 in W.P.Nos.16000 to 16004 of 2017 on account of the confusion that prevailed. Be that as it may, the issue has been alive in these proceedings, all through though the other two issue have been settled in favour of the petitioner and have been dropped. As far as deficit stock is concerned, it has be construed that the issue is still alive. Neither the Department can be deprived of the revenue if the amount w....