AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice M. Jaichandren
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the impugned order passed by the respondent, dated 15.12.2011, is arbitrary and erroneous, as it had been passed contrary to the relevant provisions of law. He had further submitted that the respondent ought to have passed an order, u/s 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 read with Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, accepting the returns filed by the petitioner. Instead, the respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 15.12.2011, in respect of the assessment year 2007-2008, stating that the petitioner had not filed any objections to the notice issued by the respondent. He had further submitted that the respondent ought to have accepted the Nil returns filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent could have issued a notice for revision of assessment order, before passing such order, u/s 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had not refuted the said submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
In such circumstances, the impugned order of the respondent, dated 15.12.2011, is set aside. The respondent is directed to pass an order, accepting the Nil returns filed by the petitioner. However, it would be open to the respondent to revise the said order, by issuing an appropriate notice and by passing an order, u/s 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, if it is found to be necessary. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.