2014 (10) TMI 59 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Revision of assessment - cross verification of the particulars as found in the returns filed by the petitioner - Held that - No opportunity was given by the authority to the petitioner to produce necessary documents, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the authority concerned for fresh consideration after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to produce all the relevant documents as may be required by the authority - The petitioner shall deposit 25% of the total tax demanded as volunteered on or before 15.08.2014, failing which, the order of the respondent as of today, shall hold good. However, if the petitioner deposits the amount as offered by them, the respondent shall consider the objections/ documents to be produced by the petitioner and pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned order dated 30.05.2014 for assessment year 2012-2013 under Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered dealer in hardware items, challenged an order proposing to revise assessment based on cross verification of returns and turnover reported by third parties. The petitioner sought invoice details and addresses of alleged purchasers to respond effectively. The petitioner argued that the authority wrongly placed the burden of proof on them and should have verified the records themselves. They offered to deposit 25% of the tax amount to facilitate a fresh review.

The respondent contended that the petitioner should verify purchaser details provided, and if the petitioner deposits 25% of the tax demand, another opportunity could be granted to submit required documents. The court, after hearing both sides and noting the lack of opportunity for the petitioner to present documents, set aside the impugned order. The matter was remitted back to the authority with conditions: the petitioner must deposit 25% of the total tax demanded by a specified date, failing which the original order stands. If the deposit is made, the authority will review the objections and documents provided by the petitioner and issue a fresh decision in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the writ petition was allowed with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. The court's decision emphasized affording the petitioner sufficient opportunity to produce relevant documents and clarified the conditions for reconsideration of the tax assessment.