GLOBAL CALCIUM PRIVATELIMITED Vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these writ petitions, the petitioner, who is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and Central Sales Act, 1956, has challenged the orders of the assessment passed by the first respondent, under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, for the assessment years 2009 -10, 2010 -11, 2011 -12 and 2012 -13.

(2.) THE only ground, on which the impugned orders of assessment have been challenged, is that the petitioner has not been afforded adequate opportunity to put forth their submissions stating that the proposal to reverse the ITC availed is incorrect. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on Section 27(2) of the TNVAT Act and submitted that the phrase used in the said provision is reasonable opportunity and reasonable opportunity should be a meaningful opportunity and when the petitioner requested time even before the expiry of 15th day, the authority has passed orders for all four assessment years.

(3.) THE first respondent issued notice dated 12.09.2014 proposing to reverse ITC as per Section 27(2) of TNVAT Act and apart from, proposing to levy penalty at 50% as per Section 27(4) of TNVAT Act. The petitioner, by representation dated 29.09.2014, submitted that they have received the revision notice on 16.09.2014 and proposal has been made without taking into consideration of adjustment of ITC towards future demands and they are arriving at the details of adjustment of ITC for every month and as it would take some time to gather all details, the petitioner requested 30 days time to file their detailed objections to the proposed revision. The request for adjournment was received by the first respondent on 30.09.2014. However, on the same day, the impugned orders of assessment have been passed.