2014 (9) TMI 812 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - Section 25 - turnover - objections filed - Held that - Respondent has passed the impugned order in piece-meal for particular months and not for the entire year, I am of the view that this is a fit case, where the impugned order can be set aside and the matter can be remitted back to the respondent to decide the matter afresh. Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Challenge to assessment order for the year 2012-13 based on total reported sales figure for previous years, violation of principles of natural justice in passing the order in piece-meal for particular months, failure to file objections by the petitioner.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Challenge to assessment order for the year 2012-13 based on total reported sales figure for previous years
The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order of the respondent in TIN No.33571082007/12-13, dated 22.04.2014, which reckoned the sum of &8377; 4,96,67,525/- for the year 2012-13 based on total reported sales figures for the years 2007-08 to 2011-12. The petitioner argued that since the sales turnover for each of the previous assessment years had been separately determined through assessment orders, it was not permissible to consider the same sales turnover for the year 2012-13. The respondent, however, contended that the regular assessment under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 was passed after the assessment year had concluded. The Court found merit in the petitioner's argument and set aside the impugned order, remitting the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration.

Issue 2: Violation of principles of natural justice in passing the order in piece-meal for particular months
The petitioner contended that the respondent had passed the impugned order in a piece-meal manner for specific months rather than considering the entire year, which was alleged to be violative of principles of natural justice and non est in the eye of law. The respondent argued that since the petitioner had not filed objections despite having the right to do so, the impugned order was not in violation of natural justice. The Court, after hearing both sides, agreed with the petitioner's contention and held that passing the order in a piece-meal fashion was improper. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondent to decide the matter afresh in a comprehensive manner.

Issue 3: Failure to file objections by the petitioner
The petitioner, due to personal difficulty, had not filed objections against the pre-assessment notice issued by the respondent. The respondent argued that the petitioner had the right to file objections but failed to do so, leading to the confirmation of the proposal in the impugned order. The Court, while acknowledging the petitioner's failure to file objections, granted permission to file the same within two weeks from the judgment date. The Court directed the respondent to provide an opportunity for a hearing to the petitioner upon filing objections and to pass fresh orders expeditiously and in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition, set aside the impugned order, and remitted the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner was granted the opportunity to file objections, and the respondent was directed to decide the matter afresh, ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice and the law.