2006 (8) TMI 526 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order based on liability of selling dealer for contravention of conditions in Form XVII under Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act.
Applicability of previous judgments in similar cases to current assessment.
Consideration of statutory amendments and burden of proof on dealer.
Availability of appellate remedy for challenging assessment orders.
Admissibility of writ petition without filing original order.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an assessment order for the assessment year 2003-04, arguing that as per section 3(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, only the purchasing dealer can be held liable for contraventions of conditions in Form XVII, not the selling dealer. The petitioner cited previous judgments, including a Division Bench decision and a single Judge's order, to support their case. These judgments highlighted that action against the purchasing dealer should be taken for any discrepancies in declaration forms, not the selling dealer. However, the court noted that the statutory position had changed since those judgments were made, with amendments to the Act, including the introduction of penalties for producing false documents to evade tax.

The court emphasized that the impugned assessment order was subject to appellate provisions available under the statute. The court stated that issues related to the liability of the selling dealer and the imposition of penalties could be raised before the appellate authority. The court cited a Supreme Court judgment to support the principle that assessments should be left to the discretion of the assessing officer, with statutory remedies available for aggrieved parties. The court also highlighted the need for the petitioner to exhaust appellate remedies before seeking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Regarding the admissibility of the writ petition, the court noted that the petitioner had not filed the original assessment order, which is a statutory requirement. Instead, a certified copy was submitted, and a petition was filed to dispense with the production of the original order. The court criticized this approach, stating that it appeared the petitioner was withholding the original order to file an appeal if the writ petition was dismissed. The court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the order was appealable under the statute, and no costs were awarded. The miscellaneous petitions were also dismissed accordingly.