9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (8) TMI 576 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxWrit of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records - Alternate remedy - Incorrect availment of ITC - Held that - Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents opposed the prayer made in the writ petition stating that as against the impugned order passed by the first respondent, the petitioner is having an alternative remedy under Section 51 of the TNVAT Act, before the second respondent, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Madurai, and without availing such remedy, the petitioner has filed the writ petition. Since the petitioner is having an appellate remedy under Section 51 of the TNVAT Act, Court is of the opinion that instead of entertaining this writ petition, liberty could be given to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 51 of the TNVAT Act before the second respondent, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Madurai, as against the order dated 10.06.2013. Accordingly, liberty is given to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 51 of the TNVAT Act before the second respondent, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Madurai, as against the order dated 10.06.2013, on payment of 25% of the disputed tax amount, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such filing of the appeal, the second respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks thereafter - Decided against assessee.
Issues:
1. Challenge to assessment order under TNVAT Act for incorrect availment of ITC. 2. Allegation of incorrect classification of goods under Commodity Code. 3. Failure to consider petitioner's reply and request for revision under Section 84 of TNVAT Act. 4. Jurisdiction of High Court to entertain writ petition without exhausting appellate remedy under Section 51 of TNVAT Act. Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged the assessment order under the TNVAT Act, alleging incorrect availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC). The first respondent initially accepted the returns but later issued a revision notice, proposing to levy a penalty for incorrect ITC claim. The petitioner contended that the goods purchased were misclassified under Commodity Code No.2041 instead of No.301, leading to the alleged incorrect ITC claim of Rs. 6,60,713. 2. The petitioner argued that the goods purchased were correctly classified under Commodity Code No.301, not 2041. Despite providing a reply explaining the classification error as a bona fide mistake, the first respondent issued an assessment order without considering the petitioner's response. The petitioner contended that the entire turnover was supported by proper tax invoices and should be taxed at 12.5% under Commodity Code No.301. 3. The petitioner sought a revision of the assessment order under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, emphasizing the rectification of the Commodity Code error. However, the first respondent rejected the petition under Section 84, prompting the petitioner to file a writ petition. The petitioner argued that the assessing authority failed to provide a reasonable opportunity to address the notice, violating principles of natural justice. 4. The High Court considered the jurisdictional issue of entertaining the writ petition without exhausting the appellate remedy under Section 51 of the TNVAT Act. The Court noted that the petitioner had an alternative remedy to appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) in Madurai. Consequently, the Court directed the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 51, paying 25% of the disputed tax amount within two weeks. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner was instructed to dispose of the appeal within four weeks, emphasizing adherence to legal procedures. This detailed analysis covers the key issues raised in the judgment and provides a comprehensive understanding of the legal proceedings and decisions involved.
|
