9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (5) TMI 531 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRejection of the petitioner's return filed as being incorrect and incomplete - Held that - It is seen that the writ petition was entertained by this Court, since the challenge to the validity of Section 19(2) of the Act was pending at the relevant point of time. It is not disputed by the petitioner that the validity of the said enactment was upheld by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court by order dated 17.07.2013. Therefore, the petitioner cannot maintain this writ petition against the impugned proceedings, which is only a show cause notice, since the statutory provision has been upheld to be a valid piece of legislation. Therefore, only remedy left to the petitioner is to submit its reply to the impugned proceedings. - Decided against assessee.
Issues:
Challenge to impugned proceedings under Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for assessment year 2007-08. Validity of Section 19(2) of the Act. Petitioner's remedy against the impugned proceedings. Compliance with circular dated 04.11.2013 for finalizing assessment. Analysis: 1. The petitioner sought to quash the impugned proceedings of the respondent issued in TIN 33964220567/2007-2008 dated 27.07.2011 under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The respondent proposed to reject the petitioner's return for the assessment year 2007-08 as incorrect and incomplete under Section 22(3) of the Act. The petitioner challenged this notice, citing the pendency of writ petitions challenging Section 19(2) of the Act. 2. The petitioner argued that a stay had been granted by the Court in similar cases, and thus, should not be required to respond to the notice dated 27.07.2011. The petitioner contended that a previous notice was issued on 13.09.2010, to which objections were submitted on 06.10.2010. The petitioner's counsel highlighted a circular issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on 04.11.2013, outlining steps for finalizing assessments under Section 19(2) of the Act. 3. The Court noted that the challenge to the validity of Section 19(2) of the Act was upheld by a Division Bench order dated 17.07.2013. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner could not maintain the writ petition against the impugned proceedings, which was merely a show cause notice. The petitioner was directed to respond to the notice within four weeks and afforded a personal hearing by the respondent, following the directions in the circular dated 04.11.2013. 4. The Court emphasized the importance of complying with the circular for finalizing assessments, specifically regarding the identification of cases with accumulated Input Tax Credit (ITC) due to discrepancies in sale and purchase prices. The Court directed the petitioner to cooperate with the respondent for the expeditious resolution of the matter. Until final orders were passed, no coercive steps were to be taken against the petitioner, given the interim injunction in place since August 2011. 5. Ultimately, the Court disposed of the writ petition with the direction for the petitioner to respond to the impugned notice, cooperate with the assessment process, and comply with the circular's guidelines. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed, bringing the legal proceedings to a conclusion.
|
