9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (2) TMI 1334 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxPrinciples of natural justice - opportunity of time sought for - Held that - Adequate opportunity was given to the petitioner company to file an objections and/or additional documents - time as sought for by the petitioner company was granted; final orders were passed only on 22.12.2016. Lack of application of mind - Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 - Held that - It appears that the Assessing Officer over looked the fact that the credit notes along with the cancelled invoices in respect of assessment years 2012-2013 to 2014-2015 were filed. Despite which, the Assessing Officer appears to have levied tax with respect to defect No.10. Similarly in respect of Defect No.1, as pointed out in the Inspection report, the stand of the petitioner is that necessary documents were furnished. Therefore, having regard to this aspect, I am inclined to grant leave to the petitioner to file a petition under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, 2006. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Adequate opportunity granted to the petitioner company to file objections and additional documents. 2. Allegation of lack of application of mind by the Assessing Officer regarding specific defects. 3. Granting leave to the petitioner to file a petition under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 for defects 1 and 10. 4. Inclusion of issues related to other defects in the Section 84 petition. 5. Clarification on the recovery of tax for issues beyond defects 1 and 10. Issue 1: The High Court examined whether the petitioner company was given sufficient opportunity to file objections and additional documents. The court noted that the company had received a notice from the Assessing Officer and attended a hearing where it requested time to submit relevant documents. Despite this, the company failed to file objections or additional documents. The court concluded that adequate opportunity was indeed provided, and the challenge on this ground was deemed unsustainable. Issue 2: Regarding the allegation of lack of application of mind by the Assessing Officer, the court focused on specific defects, particularly defect Nos. 1 and 10. The court acknowledged that there appeared to be merit in the claim that the Assessing Officer overlooked crucial information related to these defects. Consequently, the court decided to grant the petitioner leave to file a petition under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 within a specified timeframe to address these issues. Issue 3: The court granted the petitioner permission to file a Section 84 petition specifically for defects 1 and 10, directing that the tax imposed for these defects should not be recovered until the petition is resolved. The petitioner was instructed to take necessary action within two weeks from receiving a copy of the court's order. Issue 4: The court addressed the request by the petitioner's counsel to include issues related to other defects in the Section 84 petition. The court clarified that the petitioner was not restricted from including additional issues in the petition. However, it was emphasized that the decision on whether these issues constituted errors apparent on the face of the record would be at the discretion of the Assessing Officer. Issue 5: In relation to the recovery of tax for issues beyond defects 1 and 10, the court made it explicit that the stay on tax recovery only applied to these specific defects. The recovery of tax for other aspects, apart from those pertaining to defects 1 and 10, was not stayed, ensuring clarity on the scope of the court's decision. The judgment by the High Court of Madras addressed the petitioner's concerns regarding the assessment orders issued by the Assessing Officer. It delved into the adequacy of opportunities provided to the petitioner, the alleged lack of application of mind by the Assessing Officer, and the subsequent decision to grant leave for filing a Section 84 petition under the TNVAT Act, 2006. The court's detailed analysis and directions aimed to address the specific defects raised by the petitioner while maintaining clarity on the recovery of tax for different issues.
|
