2016 (2) TMI 913 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of order - it could be seen that the first respondent had considered the contentions of the petitioner and has given a finding. While coming to the conclusion, the first respondent also observed that in the absence of correct figures being furnished as alleged by the dealers, there is no other alternative to the inspecting officials except to adopt the figures as furnished by the dealers only at the time of inspection. Observing so, the first respondent rejected the contentions of the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that the first respondent had totally ignored the contentions raised by the petitioner. - the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order is liable to be rejected

Summary

Issues:
Challenging a revised assessment order under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act based on incorrect stock variation methodology and alleged errors in assessment process.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus to challenge the order dated 18.01.2016 by the first respondent regarding the assessment year 2011-2012 under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act. The petitioner alleged that the second respondent, along with Enforcement Wing officials, used a flawed methodology for stock variation during an inspection at the petitioner's business premises. Despite the petitioner's objections and submission of detailed statements and documents showing discrepancies, the first respondent proceeded with the impugned order. The petitioner argued that the first respondent, as a quasi-judicial authority, should have applied independent judgment and not relied on higher officials' directions. Additionally, the petitioner claimed errors in adding equal amounts for probable omissions in the assessment.

The Additional Government Pleader for the respondents contended that factual disputes should be addressed by the appellate forum rather than under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order showed that the first respondent considered the petitioner's contentions but ultimately relied on the figures provided by the dealers during inspection due to the absence of correct figures from the petitioner. The court noted that the petitioner had appellate remedy available to challenge the first respondent's findings, indicating that the writ petition challenging the impugned order should be rejected. The court emphasized that the petitioner could pursue the challenge before the appellate authority, leading to the dismissal of the Writ Petition without costs.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of appellate remedy for challenging assessment orders based on factual aspects and reiterated that Article 226 proceedings are not suitable for resolving factual disputes. The court's decision to dismiss the writ petition emphasized the availability of appellate recourse for addressing grievances related to assessment orders, underscoring the proper legal process for challenging administrative decisions under the tax law framework.