SKY WORLD Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . A. R. Jaya Prathap, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondent. By consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. Heard Mr. S. Rajasekar, learned counsel representing Ms. R. Hemalatha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. R. Jaya Prathap, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. What is challenged in this writ petition is the proceedings of the respondent in TIN No. 33094563601/2011 -12, dated January 7, 2013 in respect of the assessment year 2011 -2012, imposing tax and penalty on the petitioner -company, seeking to quash the same.

(2.) THE petitioner -company is an assessee on the file of the respondent and they have been registered under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as, "the TNVAT Act"). They are dealing in electronic goods, such as televisions and refrigerators and for the purpose of business, they procure the said goods from the registered dealers situated within the State and then sell the same to ultimate customers from their doorstep. The officials of the enforcement wing conducted a spot inspection on April 20, 2012 at the petitioner's business premises and verified various records. Based on the instructions of the higher officials, the enforcement wing officials conducted audit in terms of section 64(4) of the TNVAT Act. On that basis, assessment was made by the respondent and impugned proceedings had been issued, demanding total tax due at Rs. 95,48,818 after calculations, and after deducting the total tax paid at Rs. 74,93,460, a sum of Rs. 20,55,358 was arrived as balance tax to be paid and the penalty due was also calculated at Rs. 10,58,078; it was also indicated in the impugned proceedings that no penalty was paid by the petitioner and notices in form O and form RR were also issued.

(3.) THE main thrust of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was no sufficient opportunity given to the petitioner before concluding the impugned assessment proceedings and the demand made thereon. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent in principle accepted that there must be an opportunity and submitted that the petitioner will be given an opportunity, if the matter is remanded to the authority for fresh consideration.