2015 (4) TMI 1219 - HC - Indian Laws

Input tax credit - TNVAT Act - application of mind - Held that - It is not in dispute that the petitioner has submitted all the necessary details, more particularly the information such as Registration Certificate Numbers under the TNVAT Act of the sellers and dealers. Therefore, when the petitioner has initially discharged his burden as per Section 19(10)(a) of the TNVAT Act, showing that the goods have been subjected to tax at an earlier stage, the respondent ought to have considered the same - the Assessment Orders are passed without considering the objections and by merely taking note of the proposal of the Enforcement Officer - assessment orders are set aside - Assessing Officer is directed to re-consider each one of the objections raised by the petitioner and give reason - petition allowed by wayof remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging impugned orders passed by Assessment Officer; Failure to consider furnished documents for input tax credit; Burden of proof under Section 19(10)(a) of TNVAT Act; Non-application of mind by respondent; Consideration of objections by Assessing Officer; Setting aside Assessment Orders based on Enforcement Officer's proposal.

Analysis:
The judgment involves two writ petitions filed by a business entity challenging the impugned orders passed by the Assessment Officer. The petitioner claimed to have furnished all necessary documents for input tax credit in accordance with Section 19(11) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act of 2006. The petitioner argued that despite providing details each month, the respondent repeatedly requested the same particulars, indicating a lack of application of mind by the respondent.

The petitioner contended that as per Section 19(10)(a) of the TNVAT Act, they had discharged the burden of proving that goods were taxed at an earlier stage by providing relevant details such as registration numbers and original invoices. The petitioner criticized the respondent for not considering these details and prematurely concluding based on an alleged proposal of reversal of input tax credit.

The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, acknowledged the infirmity in the impugned orders in light of a previous judgment. The court noted that the petitioner had indeed submitted all necessary details, including registration certificate numbers under the TNVAT Act, to prove tax compliance at an earlier stage. The court emphasized that the respondent failed to consider these details and overruled objections without providing valid reasons, as required by law.

The court referred to a specific case where objections were not duly considered by the assessing officer, who relied solely on an enforcement officer's proposal. The court criticized this approach, stating that assessment orders must be based on a proper consideration of objections with valid reasons. Consequently, the court set aside the assessment orders and directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine each objection raised by the petitioner with proper reasoning.

In conclusion, the court allowed both writ petitions, remanding the matters back to the Assessment Officer for reassessment in accordance with the law. The judgment highlights the importance of a thorough consideration of objections and the necessity for valid reasons in assessment orders, rather than relying solely on enforcement officer proposals.