2013 (1) TMI 407 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Non registration of additional place of business/branches or godown with the Commercial Taxes Department - dealers have violated the provisions of the Act thus materials kept in the undisclosed place will be treated as sale and no Input tax credit be allowed - Held that - As Government Advocate states that the objections of the dealer could be made to the authority concerned and the authority will consider the same and pass reasoned order. Therefore, to challenge the revision notices at this stage is premature and may not be justified. Assuming without admitting that the contention of the counsel for the petitioner is sustainable, the fact that the authority has got the power to issue notice under Section 27(2) of TNVAT Act read with Section 9 of the CST Act is not disputed. As to how a particular transaction will be treated for the purpose of assessment or for extending certain benefits will be examined by the authority after considering the objections that may be placed before him. At the stage of issuance of notice, the court will only go into the issue as to whether there is lack of jurisdiction or the notice is inherently not maintainable in law. That situation does not arise in the present cases. In view of the above, it will be appropriate that the petitioner should submit a detailed objection and the legal plea now taken before this court by way of objection within two weeks time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The authority shall consider the same on merits and pass appropriate orders and if the petitioner seeks personal hearing in the reply/objection that may be filed, the authority shall grant him such opportunity.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to revision notices under TNVAT Act for different assessment years.
2. Challenge to revision notices under CST Act for different assessment years.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, filed multiple writ petitions challenging revision notices issued for different assessment years under the TNVAT Act. The notices alleged violations related to unregistered business places and denial of input tax credit. The petitioner contended that there was no sale of goods and no input tax credit was availed. The court noted that the authority had the power to issue notices under the TNVAT Act and CST Act, and the objections raised by the petitioner would be considered by the authority. The court emphasized that the lack of jurisdiction or inherent maintainability issues were not present in the case, directing the petitioner to submit detailed objections for further consideration by the authority.

2. Regarding the challenge to revision notices under the CST Act for different assessment years, the petitioner claimed entitlement to the concessional rate of tax and argued that the denial of benefits based on being not classified as a telecom service provider was erroneous. The notices alleged violations in purchasing goods interstate without incorporating them in the CST Registration Certificate. The Government Advocate suggested that the dealer's objections should be made to the authority for consideration. The court directed the petitioner to submit detailed objections and legal pleas for review by the authority, granting two weeks to furnish a reply. The authority was instructed to decide the issue on merits promptly, allowing the petitioner to seek further remedies if needed. Ultimately, all the writ petitions were disposed of without costs, with the connected miscellaneous petitions closed.