Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  W.P.Nos.28744 & 28744 of 2024 3.1 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned orders by contending that the demand of tax with respect to Defect No.8 has been confirmed solely on the ground that there is a decrease in taxable turnover for the periods from 2020-21 and 2021-22 when compared to the turnover for the period 2019-20 while consumption of power remains more or less the same. The learned counsel submitted that owing to Covid-19, there was close down, resulting in the goods being stagnated in the godowns, and that since the petitioner is carrying out the manufacturing process as a Job Worker, the final products manufactured for the third party has to be stored in the deep freezer facility installed in the petitioner's business premises till the final products are supplied to the principal suppliers, viz., Co-operatives Societies, i.e. for 200 MT under (-20 degree Celsius) which contributed to the excess consumption of electricity, and despite the fact that the said aspect was answered in the form of reply, stating that EB units consumed are not directly linked with the sales of the petitioner and explained the reason for the difference in turnover during the period subject period with supporting documents, the respondent failed to consider the said vital aspect and passed the impugned orders, that too, in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  W.P.Nos.28744 & 28744 of 2024 the absence of any contrary evidence produced to substantiate the alleged suppression of sale. Hence, the learned counsel contended that the impugned orders are totally non-speaking orders and suffers from violation of principles of natural, as the petitioner has not been afforded with any opportunity of being heard before passing the same, and therefore, prayed for remanding the matter to the respondent for re-consideration insofar as it relates to defect No.8 alone is concerned.

4. Mrs.K.Vasanthamala, learned Government Advocate (T) for the respondent would submit that on verification of EB details and the taxable turnover produced by the petitioner for the assessment year 2019-20 to 2022-23, the respondent noticed that there were differential taxable turnover, which were treated as sales suppression and therefore, show cause notice was issued calling forth petitioner's reply, since the reply filed by the petitioner is not convincing, particularly, regarding consumption of electricity, there is no quantitative, which is squarely applicable to the decrease in both taxable and exempted turnover, correct proportion of EB unit for the production done could not be arrived at, therefore, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  W.P.Nos.28744 & 28744 of 2024 respondent passed the impugned order, levying higher rate of tax @ 12% and penalty under Section 74 of the TNGST. Thus, by stating so, the learned Government Advocate (T) requested this Court to dismiss the Writ PetitionS, or else to direct the petitioner to avail alternate remedy of filing Appeals before the Appellate Authority challenging the impugned orders.