9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (9) TMI 592 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRecovery proceedings - Demand notice issued under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act 2006 and General Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Whether in case an assessee has filed a defective revision petition, even then, benefit of stay can be granted - Held that - there will be a direction to the concerned Revisional Authorities to consider the petitioner s stay petitions, if the same have been properly filed and pass orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The benefit of this order will not enure to the petitioner, if the revision petition is otherwise defective. Adjustment of demand with tax credit - Held that - the petitioner would state that the dealer have sufficient tax credit and the same has to be adjusted. It will be roughly ₹ 67,000/-, even this claim has to be accepted by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the petitioner shall pay the amount demanded in Serial No.6 above and the same shall be paid within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and such, payment made by the petitioner towards this amount shall be without prejudice to the claim of the petitioner regarding the ITC available/refund order. - Decided partly in favor of assessee.
Issues:
Challenge to demand notice under Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act 2006 and General Sales Tax Act, 1956. Analysis: The petitioner sought a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to challenge a demand notice issued under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act 2006 and General Sales Tax Act, 1956. The demand notice specified amounts for different periods, including March 2014, April 2014, 2013-2014, 2008-2009, and 2009-2010. The petitioner agreed to pay the amounts demanded for March 2014 and April 2014, rendering the challenge for those periods infructuous. The petitioner was granted 30 days to make the payment for these periods. For the demands related to 2013-2014, the petitioner had filed a revision petition pending before the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (RP), Chennai, and for another period, a revision petition was pending before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (RP), Trichy. The petitioner had also filed stay petitions in both revision petitions, which were pending. The court directed the Revisional Authorities to consider the petitioner's stay petitions within 30 days and pass orders accordingly, provided the petitions were properly filed. The petitioner was instructed to pay the demands for the remaining periods without prejudice to their rights. Regarding the demand for the period 2008-2009, the petitioner claimed a valid refund, which needed adjudication by the appropriate authority. The petitioner was required to move the appropriate authority to pursue the refund claim and then seek a stay of the demand. For the demand related to 2009-2010, the petitioner asserted having sufficient tax credit that needed adjustment, roughly amounting to &8377;67,000. The Assessing Officer was to accept this claim for adjustment. The petitioner was directed to pay the amount demanded for this period within 30 days, without prejudice to the claim regarding Input Tax Credit (ITC) availability or refund order. The court disposed of the Writ Petition with the above observations, without imposing any costs, and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.
|
