9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (1) TMI 796 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxWhether the assessing authority is entitled to invoke section 25(1) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006? Held that - The impugned orders do not show that the petitioner either failed to file a return under section 21 of the Act, within the prescribed period-or-filed a return with incomplete or incorrect particulars. Since the pre-requisites for invoking section 25(1) are not indicated in the impugned orders, to have been satisfied, the respondent could not have invoked section 25 of the Act. Therefore it is clear that the occasion for the respondent to pass an order under section 25 of the Act, is not borne out at least from the impugned orders. In such circumstances the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the respondent should be directed to proceed in accordance with law. Appeal allowed.
Issues:
Challenging assessment orders under section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the assessment orders on the basis that the respondent should have passed a final assessment order under section 22 instead of a provisional one under section 25. The respondent argued that the orders were final assessment orders despite the term "provisional" being used. The court examined the wording of the orders and found that the impugned orders did not meet the prerequisites for invoking section 25, as they did not show that the petitioner failed to file a return or filed an incomplete or incorrect return. Since the petitioner had reported total and taxable turnover in monthly returns, the court concluded that the respondent could not have validly invoked section 25. The court highlighted that if the petitioner had filed returns as per section 21, the assessing authority should have passed an order based on those returns under section 22(2). The court noted that even if no return was submitted, section 22(4) allowed for a best-of-judgment assessment order. Since the impugned orders did not demonstrate the necessity for invoking section 25, the court held that the orders should be set aside, and the respondent directed to proceed in accordance with the law. In conclusion, the writ petitions were allowed, the impugned assessment orders were set aside, and the respondent was instructed to proceed lawfully. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
|
