9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 1334 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxValidity of assessment order - TNVAT Act - Held that - the second respondent has committed error while passing the impugned orders. If the Appellate Authority is of the view that the matter requires reconsideration then he ought to have rendered findings to the said effect and then remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment in accordance with law - However in the instant cases the Appellate Authority has recorded certain findings which are against the petitioner yet remanded the matter for thorough verification. Both these conclusions cannot sail together. The findings recorded by the Appellate Authority are vacated and the matter is remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration who shall redo the assessment after thorough verification of the records and after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner - petition allowed in part.
Issues:
Challenge to order of Appellate Deputy Commissioner under Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14. Analysis: The petitioner contested the order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner challenging assessments made under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act for specific years. The High Court noted that since the issues in both writ petitions were the same and the parties identical, they were being addressed together. The Appellate Authority had not agreed with the petitioner's contentions, leading to a remand for fresh investigation to sustain the assessment. However, the Court found that the Appellate Authority's conclusions were contradictory as it both rejected the petitioner's pleas and remanded the case for further verification, which was deemed erroneous. The Court referred to a previous case to emphasize that when an Appellate Authority remands a matter for reconsideration, it should not make adverse observations on the assessment's merits. The Court highlighted that the Assessing Officer, being subordinate to the Appellate Authority, would likely follow the Authority's findings. Therefore, the Appellate Authority should have refrained from making negative observations if it believed the matter needed reexamination. In light of the above, the High Court partially allowed the Writ Petitions, vacated the Appellate Authority's findings, and remanded the matter to the first respondent for fresh consideration. The first respondent was instructed to redo the assessment after thorough verification of records and providing the petitioner with a personal hearing. The Court explicitly stated that the first respondent should not be influenced by the Appellate Authority's observations. The impugned orders were only confirmed regarding the remand portion, and no costs were awarded. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed as a result of the judgment.
|
