1995 (4) TMI 267 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Assessment under section 16 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 without prior assessment under section 12 of the Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Assessment under Section 16 without Prior Assessment under Section 12:
The case involved assessments by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer II, Enforcement, Tiruvannamalai under section 16 of the Act for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76 on escaped turnovers and levy of penalties. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal held that since there was no assessment under section 12 of the Act, the assessments under section 16 were without jurisdiction. The Tribunal set aside the assessments, stating there was no need for remanding the matter for fresh assessments.

2. Arguments by the State and the Assessee:
The State contended that assessments under section 12 were made, even though they were "nil" assessments, and thus, the subsequent assessments under section 16 were justified. On the other hand, the assessee argued that without an assessment under section 12, assessments under section 16 or 16-A could not be made. The assessee claimed that since the assessment under section 12 was not served, it should be deemed non-existent in the eyes of the law.

3. Legal Provisions and Interpretation:
Section 12 of the Act outlines the procedure for making the original assessment, while section 16 allows for assessments on escaped turnovers. The term "assessing authority" is defined in section 2(c) of the Act. Notifications empowered the D.C.T.O. II, Enforcement Wing, Tiruvannamalai, to assess escaped turnovers under sections 16 and 16-A of the Act.

4. Court's Decision and Precedent:
The Court noted that the original assessments under section 12 were made, and the subsequent assessments under section 16 by the D.C.T.O. II, Enforcement Wing, Tiruvannamalai, were valid. Citing a precedent, the Court held that the assessments on escaped turnovers included the original turnover. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision to set aside the assessments and penalties was deemed incorrect. The Court allowed the State's revisions, setting aside the Tribunal's order and restoring the assessments made by the D.C.T.O. II, Enforcement Wing, Tiruvannamalai for the assessment years in question.

In conclusion, the High Court of Madras ruled in favor of the State, upholding the assessments made under section 16 of the Act, even in the absence of prior assessments under section 12. The Court emphasized the validity of the assessments on escaped turnovers and penalties imposed by the D.C.T.O. II, Enforcement Wing, Tiruvannamalai, and set aside the Tribunal's decision.