2016 (11) TMI 1412 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of assessment order - the contention of the petitioner is that full particulars were not furnished and that the system failed because of the connectivity problem and other issues. Therefore, the petitioner seeks one more opportunity to go before the Assessing Officer - Held that - this Court is not inclined to set aside the impugned orders in entirety, as the petitioner has been granted partial relief in the impugned orders. Therefore, the proper thing for the petitioner is to approach the respondent by way of a rectification petition under Section 84 of the State Act - the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a petition under Section 84 of the State Act.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment orders under Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for the years 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13.

Analysis:

1. Factual Error in Assessment Orders:
The petitioner challenged the assessment orders on the grounds of factual errors. The petitioner claimed that there was a factual error in the impugned orders and referred to the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions. The petitioner's representative appeared before the respondent for system verification, but due to a server problem, not all details could be verified. The respondent alleged that the petitioner did not utilize the opportunity to be heard and did not produce any details. However, the court noted that there was no denial in the counter affidavit regarding the petitioner's representative attending the office of the respondent for verification.

2. Reduction in Proposal and Partial Confirmation:
Upon reviewing the impugned orders, it was observed that the proposal made in the show cause notices was substantially reduced when passing the assessment orders. The respondent mentioned in the orders that the proposal in the show cause notices had been partly confirmed. This reduction indicated that the petitioner had provided certain material or explanations that satisfied the Assessing Officer regarding the alleged mismatch.

3. Request for Additional Opportunity:
The petitioner contended that full particulars were not furnished, and the system failure occurred due to connectivity problems and other issues. Seeking one more opportunity to appear before the Assessing Officer, the petitioner argued that the interest of the Revenue would not be affected as the petitioner was entitled to a refund, which could be adjusted against the tax dues.

4. Direction for Rectification Petition:
The court, while not inclined to set aside the impugned orders entirely, directed the petitioner to file a petition under Section 84 of the State Act within two weeks. The respondent was instructed to provide an opportunity for a personal hearing, consider the issues raised by the petitioner effectively, and pass an order in accordance with the law within two weeks thereafter. No coercive action for recovery of tax and penalty was to be taken against the petitioner until the new order was passed.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the challenges to the assessment orders, highlighted the reduction in the proposed tax liability, and directed the petitioner to seek redressal through a rectification petition while ensuring a fair opportunity for presenting their case before the Assessing Officer.