2014 (7) TMI 931 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus - Call for records - Violation of principle of natural justice - Held that - Irrespective of the submissions made by either counsel, without going into the merits of the matter, based on the circulars dated 29.06.1999 and 28.02.2001, issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai, petitioner is directed to pay 10% of the tax within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such payment, the respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 03.05.2014 on re-submission together with the Form-C and Form-H declaration forms and re- open the assessment and receive the declaration forms and pass orders in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks thereafter - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order under CST Act for the year 2011-2012, failure to submit Form-C and Form-H declarations, request for re-opening assessment, non-consideration of representation by the respondent, applicability of administrative circulars, availability of appellate remedy.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to challenge the assessment order under the Central Sales Tax Act for the year 2011-2012. The petitioner reported a total turnover and taxable turnover, but the respondent issued a pre-assessment notice alleging incorrect reporting of export sales turnover and proposed disallowance of exemption claims due to non-filing of Form-H declarations. Similarly, for non-filing of Form-C declarations, the concessional tax rate was proposed to be disallowed. The petitioner requested time to submit the required declarations, citing difficulties in collecting all forms. Despite the petitioner's efforts to comply, the respondent passed the assessment order disallowing exemptions and levying higher tax amounts. The petitioner made a representation requesting re-opening of the assessment, but it was returned without consideration, leading to the filing of the writ petition.

The petitioner argued that the administrative circulars issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes are binding on the Assessing Authorities, and the respondent should have acted on the representation and re-opened the assessment. However, the respondent contended that the petitioner had an appellate remedy available and had failed to file an appeal within the limitation period. After considering the arguments, the Court, based on the relevant circulars, allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and remanded the matter back to the respondent for fresh orders. The petitioner was directed to pay 10% of the tax within four weeks and upon payment, the respondent was instructed to consider the representation, re-open the assessment, and pass orders within four weeks thereafter. The Court emphasized compliance with the law and imposed conditions for further proceedings, ultimately closing the connected miscellaneous petition without costs.