Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2014 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (9) TMI 903 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxValidity of intimation sent by the Authority, who conducted a surprise inspection of the business premises - Held that - What is challenged in this writ petition is only an intimation recording the alleged defects that the Inspecting Officer noted from the records of the petitioner in the course of his surprise inspection. Nothing turns out of this inspection report unless and until any proceeding is initiated under the Act. In other words, the impugned communication does not provide a cause of action for the petitioner to come up before this Court, though it may provide a cause of action for the Assessing Authority. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Challenge to intimation sent after surprise inspection under Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Analysis: The petitioner challenged an intimation sent by the Authority following a surprise inspection of their business premises conducted under Section 65 of the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The inspection was authorized by the Joint Commissioner, Enforcement, and conducted in four places of the petitioner's business. The Inspecting Officer prepared a detailed note of about 55 pages outlining the defects observed during the inspection. The petitioner approached the court solely challenging this intimation, which recorded the alleged defects noted by the Inspecting Officer. The court noted that the impugned communication, i.e., the intimation recording the defects, did not provide a cause of action for the petitioner to approach the court. It was emphasized that the inspection report would only be relevant if any proceeding was initiated under the Act. The court clarified that the intimation did not give rise to a cause of action for the petitioner but could potentially serve as a basis for the Assessing Authority to take further action. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition without imposing any costs. The court also dismissed the related Miscellaneous Petition. The petitioner's Senior Counsel indicated that the petitioner would submit objections to the defects noted in the intimation. However, the court highlighted that the stage for submitting objections had not yet arrived, as neither the Assessing Officer nor the Revisional Authority had decided to take any action based on the inspection findings. It was mentioned that if any action were to be taken, the concerned authority would be required to provide a copy of the inspection report to the petitioner and allow them to submit objections at that stage.
|