2014 (4) TMI 1122 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of revised assessment order - Leviability of tax at 4% - Petitioner was liable to pay concessional tax of 2% as per Section 8(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act and submitted Form C for the same but respondent rejected that it was not submitted within the quarter in accordance with section 8(4) ibid - Assessment order passed without providing opportunity of personal hearing - Held that - petitioner has already submitted the declaration form in form C and also the fact that the petitioner in his reply sought for an opportunity of personal hearing but the same was not given. As per the Division Bench judgment of this court in SRC Projects Private Limited v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Chennai 2008 (9) TMI 914 - MADRAS HIGH COURT when the revised assessment order was passed without considering the request for personal hearing the impugned order has to be necessarily set aside. Therefore the revised assessment order is set aside. - Matter remitted back

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to revised assessment order for the year 2010-11 based on rejection of form C submission within the quarter and absence of personal hearing opportunity.

Analysis:
The petitioner contested the revised assessment order for the year 2010-11, arguing that as a sale was made to a registered dealer, they were entitled to pay concessional tax at two per cent under section 8(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The petitioner submitted form C, but it was rejected by the respondent as it was not submitted within the quarter as per section 8(4) of the Sales Tax Act. The petitioner relied on rule 10(2) of the Central Sales Tax (Tamil Nadu) Rules, 1957, to support their claim that the declaration form in form C could be produced before the final assessment of the accounts for that year.

The petitioner requested the respondent to restrict form C towards sales in the first quarter and paid the tax difference accordingly. Despite seeking a personal hearing in their reply, the respondent passed the revised assessment order levying tax at four per cent on the entire amount. Citing a Division Bench judgment, the petitioner argued that the order should be set aside as the request for a personal hearing was not considered before passing the revised assessment order.

The respondent contended that form C was rejected due to non-submission within the quarter, but acknowledged the authority's power to extend the time for submission. The respondent agreed to redo the assessment for the year 2010-11 considering the circumstances.

The court, after considering the submissions, set aside the impugned order based on the Division Bench judgment's precedent. The court directed the matter to be reconsidered, allowing the petitioner to submit any required documents within fifteen days and appear for a personal hearing. The respondent was instructed to review form C and make a fresh decision promptly, ensuring compliance with the law.

In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petition, overturned the impugned order, and remitted the matter back to the respondent for a fresh assessment. The petitioner was directed to cooperate in providing any necessary documents and attending a personal hearing, with the respondent instructed to decide on the matter expeditiously and in accordance with the law.