TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 219
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appellant herein. The appellant is a Registered Dealer on the file of the respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The appellant is aggrieved by the revision of assessment made by the respondent for the assessment year 2014-15 stating that on cross verification of the details through the Departmental Website, certain purchases on which the appellant claimed Purchase Input Tax Credit, had not been reflected in Annexure II of the sellers, coupled with levying interest under Section 27(3) of the Act. Since the appellant had not filed their objections, the respondent passed the order dated 28.12.2016 for the assessment year in question, which was challenged in W.P. No. 19222 of 2018. The learned Judge, con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant to participate in the assessment proceedings, he ought not to have imposed a condition to pay 15% of the disputed tax demand. Stating so, the learned counsel prayed for setting aside the order of the learned Judge and for allowing this appeal. 4. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submitted that the appellant ought to have filed their objections to the Revision Notice dated 06.10.2016 issued by the respondent earlier, but they failed to do so and hence, the respondent cannot be found fault with, in passing the order dated 28.12.2016 impugned in the writ petition, confirming the proposal made in the said Revision Notice in the absence of any objections. Therefore, the order of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emitting the matter for fresh adjudication and in the considered opinion of this court, the direction given to the appellant / writ petitioner to deposit 10% of the tax amount as claimed in the demand notice, as a condition precedent to enquire into the matter, is unsustainable and the said portion of the order is liable to be set aside." 8. Following the above said judgment, in an identical case in M/s.R.P.S & Co. v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC), Erode, [WA. No. 175 of 2022 dated 04.02.2022], this court, in which, one of us (RMDJ) was a member, has set aside the pre-condition imposed on the appellant therein to deposit 30% of the tax amount for consideration of the matter afresh by the assessing authority, observing that the same was ....