2016 (11) TMI 1471 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of assessment order - TNVAT Act - why the petitioner did not give objections to the pre-assessment notice dated 03.11.2015? - Why petitioners have not pursued the appellate remedies as against the impugned orders which have been passed on 08.12.2015? - Held that - From the averments set out in the affidavit filed in support of these writ petitions nor the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no proper explanation. This is sufficient to reject the writ petitions - petition dismissed as not maintainable.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to assessment orders under TNVAT Act for 2012-2013 and 2014-2015; Failure to give objections to pre-assessment notice; Failure to pursue appellate remedies; Lack of proper explanation for actions.

In this judgment by the High Court of Madras, the petitioner, a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, challenged the assessment orders for the years 2012-2013 and 2014-2015. The court highlighted two crucial issues that the petitioner needed to address. Firstly, the petitioner was required to provide a valid explanation for not raising objections to the pre-assessment notice issued on 03.11.2015. Secondly, the petitioner was expected to clarify why they did not pursue appellate remedies against the impugned orders issued on 08.12.2015. The court emphasized the importance of these procedural steps in legal proceedings.

The court noted that neither the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions nor the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel provided a satisfactory explanation for the petitioner's actions. The lack of a proper explanation regarding the failure to follow procedural requirements was considered sufficient grounds to dismiss the writ petitions challenging the assessment orders. The court stressed the significance of adhering to procedural rules and defending proceedings effectively to maintain the validity of legal challenges.

Despite the petitioner's argument that the same turnover was considered in both assessment orders, the court declined to delve into the merits of the contentions raised due to the absence of a proper explanation for the petitioner's failure to defend the proceedings adequately. Consequently, the court ruled that it could not entertain the writ petitions challenging the assessment orders under the TNVAT Act for 2012-2013 and 2014-2015. The judgment emphasized the importance of complying with procedural requirements and pursuing available remedies under the Act. As a result, the writ petitions were dismissed as not maintainable, with the petitioner advised to explore the remedies provided by the law.