9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (11) TMI 838 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxChallenge to the pre-assessment notice - Sale in the course of import - Exemption under Section 5(1) & 5(2) of the CST Act - import of refined palm oil is sold locally - branch transfer/consignment sale under Section 6(A) of CST Act - Held that - this Court is of the view that the impugned notices cannot be interfered by issuing a writ of certiorari and the petitioners should be directed to respond to the notices. - the learned senior counsel at the conclusion of the arguments submitted that though the issues were being agitated before this Court and writ petitions were pending, the petitioners have furnished the documents, remitted taxes wherever they were unable to produce documents, have agreed to pay the taxes. If that be the case, it is all the more a reason, that the petitioners should respond to the impugned notices by submitted their objections/replies before the authority. - writ petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of pre-assessment notices issued under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act) and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (CST Act). 2. Deemed assessment under Section 22(2) of the TNVAT Act. 3. Requirement of submitting supporting documents for claiming exemptions and concessional rates. 4. Jurisdiction and legality of issuing notices for multiple assessment years. 5. Compliance with procedural requirements under TNVAT Act and CST Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Pre-Assessment Notices: The petitioners challenged the pre-assessment notices issued by the respondent under the TNVAT Act and CST Act, arguing that these notices violated the mandatory provisions of the amended Section 22(2) of the TNVAT Act. The petitioners contended that their original assessments for the years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 were deemed to have been completed on 31.10.2012 and 31.10.2013, respectively, and thus, the issuance of further notices was unlawful. The court, however, observed that the impugned proceedings were only notices, and the petitioners were required to respond to them. It was noted that mere wrong nomenclature or quoting of wrong provisions would not vitiate the proceedings. 2. Deemed Assessment under Section 22(2) of the TNVAT Act: The petitioners argued that under the amended Section 22(2) of the TNVAT Act, every dealer is deemed to have been assessed for the year on the 31st day of October of the succeeding year, provided the returns are accompanied by the proof of payment of tax. The court highlighted that such acceptance of returns is not unconditional or absolute and must be accompanied by the prescribed documents and proof of payment of tax. The court emphasized that the statutory provisions cannot be ignored and must be complied with to claim the benefit of deemed assessment. 3. Requirement of Submitting Supporting Documents: The respondents issued notices requesting the petitioners to furnish details of imports and other supporting documents for claiming exemptions and concessional rates. The petitioners contended that they had already submitted the necessary documents and that the repeated issuance of notices constituted harassment. The court held that the petitioners were required to prove their claims by submitting the necessary documents and declarations within the prescribed period, and failure to do so would result in the liability to pay higher rates of tax. 4. Jurisdiction and Legality of Issuing Notices for Multiple Assessment Years: The petitioners challenged the issuance of a single notice relating to multiple assessment years, arguing that each assessment year is a separate unit. The court observed that the notices were issued to verify the documents and records produced by the petitioners and to ensure compliance with the statutory requirements. The court held that the jurisdictional question raised by the petitioners was a mixed question of law and fact and could be addressed by the assessing authority. 5. Compliance with Procedural Requirements: The respondents argued that the petitioners had not complied with the requirements under Section 22(2) of the TNVAT Act and had failed to file the necessary documents and declarations. The court noted that the provisions of the TNVAT Act and CST Act must be followed, and the petitioners were required to submit the prescribed documents to claim the benefits of reduced rates or exemptions. The court directed the petitioners to respond to the notices by submitting their objections and supporting documents within thirty days and instructed the respondent to afford an opportunity for a personal hearing and decide the matter on merits. Conclusion: The court dismissed all the writ petitions, directing the petitioners to submit their objections along with the necessary documents to the respondent within thirty days. The respondent was instructed to provide a personal hearing and pass a reasoned order within sixty days from the conclusion of the hearing. The court also ordered that no coercive action for recovery should be taken against the petitioners until fresh orders were passed.
|
