Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner, after elaborately referring to the facts, submitted that, since the petitioner has furnished confirmation to the tune of Rs.2,60,92,645/- from its vendors, the respondent ought to have dropped the proposal to that extent and this submission was made, without prejudice to the contention that the impugned assessment order suffers from error apparent on the face of the record, as it wholly ignores Section 19 (1) of the VAT Act. Further, it is submitted that the action of the respondent is arbitrary, as no cross verification was done, despite repeated requests. Further, it is submitted that the impugned order is bad in law, as no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, as contemplated under Section 27 of the VAT Act and there was only one notice and that was prior to the amendment to Section 22 of the VAT Act. Further, it is submitted that no reasonable opportunity was granted to the petitioner and the respondent failed to follow the procedures set-out in Circular, dated 20.04.2001. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decisions of this Court, in the case of Althaf Shoes (P) Ltd., v. Assistant Commissioner (CT), Valluvarkottam Assessment Circle, Chennai reported in (2012) 50 VST 179 (Mad) and Sri Vinayaga Agencies v. Assistant Commissioner (CT), Vadapalani-I Assessment Circle, Chennai and another reported in (2013) 60 VST 283 (Mad).

06.11.2014 Index : Yes / No Web : Yes / No srk To The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Koyambedu Assessment Circle, Market Management Committee Building, Koyambedu, Chennai 600 107 T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J., srk Pre-Delivery Order in and M.P.Nos.1 to 5 of 2013 and M.P.Nos.1 to 5 of 2014 06.11.2014 Pre-Delivery Order in and M.P.Nos.1 to 5 of 2013 and M.P.Nos.1 to 5 of 2014 To The Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S.Sivagnanam Most Respectfully submitted: