The petitioner has approached this Court, aggrieved by Ext.P1 order, passed by the assessing authority, whereby a demand of additional tax has been confirmed on the petitioner, on the ground that, there was a discrepancy noticed, between the turnover reported by the assessee along with the returns and duly supported by audited statements, and the turnover that was detected from the KVATIS system. It was alleged in the notice issued to the petitioner that, the discrepancy noticed was in the purchase turnover, in that many of the invoices noticed in the KVATIS system had not been accounted by the petitioner in his books of accounts, the copies of which were submitted to support the figures declaring the purchase turnover in the returns submitted by the petitioner. In the writ petition, it is stated that, Ext.P1 order was passed by the assessing authority, without granting the petitioner sufficient time to compare the statement of alleged suppressed purchase turnover, that was forwarded to it by the respondent, and the purchase turnover that was actually accounted by the petitioner. The contention against Ext.P1 is therefore that the said order was passed in a haste and without complying with the rules of natural justice.
