Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 3605 (MAD)

Edserv Soft Systems Limited, Rep. By Managing Director Ms. Gita v. Assistant Commissioner (CT) Saligramam Assessment Circle

2012-08-16

M.JAICHANDREN

body2012
Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner is engaged in the software business. For the assessment year 2009-2010, a total and taxable turnover of Rs.4,57,798/- had been reported, by the petitioner. Based on the inspection report, the respondent had passed an order of assessment, vide proceedings, dated 5.12.2011, accepting the returns. 3. It has been further stated that the respondent had issued a notice, dated 7.12.2011, for the revision of the assessment, under Section 27 of the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, proposing to reverse the Input Tax Credit of Rs.8,99,920/-, on the purchase of goods, from M/s.Access-V Creatives Pvt. Ltd. It had been stated that the goods, valued at Rs.2,24,98,000/-, had been purchased, during the month of April, 2009, and the petitioner had claimed Input Tax Credit. However, on verification, it had been noticed that M/s.Access-V Creatives Pvt. Ltd. had not effected any sales to the petitioner. Therefore, a proposal had been made to reverse the Input Tax Credit granted in favour of the petitioner and a penalty had also been proposed, under Section 27(3) of the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, which relates to willful non-disclosure of assessable turnover. 4. It had also been stated that the petitioner had filed its detailed objections, on 12.12.2011. However, the respondent had passed the impugned order, on 1.3.2012, as if the petitioner had failed to file its objections. Therefore, it has been stated that the impugned order of the respondent, dated 1.3.2012, relating to the assessment year 2009-2010, is liable to be set aside. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had not refuted the averments made on behalf of the petitioner. 6. In such circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to set aside the impugned proceedings of the respondent, dated 1.3.2012. The petitioner is permitted to file its detailed objections to the notice, dated 7.12.2011, issued by the respondent, under Section 27 of the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, along with the relevant records to substantiate its claims. On such submission of the objections, by the petitioner, along with the relevant records, the respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of eight weeks thereafter. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. On such submission of the objections, by the petitioner, along with the relevant records, the respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of eight weeks thereafter. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.