9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 186 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxValidity of impugned order - Levy of penalty under Section 27(3)(c) of the TNVAT Act - Availment of input tax credit - Held that - Without considering his objection and revised return filed on 14.05.2015, the respondents had passed an order of assessment - By directing the petitioner to pay 15% of the Tax amount, the matter may be remitted back to the respondent, to pass a fresh order, by considering the petitioner s objection and revised return filed on 14.05.2015, by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. - Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the respondent in TIN 33654123301/2013-14 dated 15.06.2015, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Assessment of tax liability under TNVAT Act for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. Validity of the assessment order issued by the respondent. 3. Consideration of petitioner's objection and revised return in the assessment process. 4. Imposition of penalty under Section 27(3) of the TNVAT Act. Analysis: Assessment of Tax Liability: The petitioner, a dealer in Glass and Plywood, filed an annual return for the assessment year 2013-14, reporting a total turnover below the threshold for tax liability as per Section 3(1)(b) of the TNVAT Act. The petitioner's assessment was deemed completed as per the Act. However, the respondent later issued a notice proposing to estimate sales suppression and levy penalty based on discrepancies in the petitioner's reported turnover compared to other dealers. The respondent ultimately determined the petitioner's taxable turnover at a higher amount, imposing a tax liability and penalty. Validity of Assessment Order: The petitioner challenged the assessment order, contending that the respondent did not consider their objections and revised return filed on 14.05.2015 before passing the order. The petitioner sought to set aside the order and remit the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The court found merit in the petitioner's argument and decided to remit the matter back to the respondent for a fresh assessment, considering the objections and revised return, and providing an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard. Consideration of Objection and Revised Return: The court observed that the respondent had not adequately considered the petitioner's objection and revised return before passing the assessment order. In the interest of justice, the court directed the petitioner to pay 15% of the tax amount and remitted the matter back to the respondent for a fresh assessment. The respondent was instructed to consider the petitioner's submissions and pass appropriate orders after affording a hearing to the petitioner. Imposition of Penalty: Apart from the tax liability, the respondent had imposed a penalty under Section 27(3)(c) of the TNVAT Act. The court's decision to remit the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration also implied a review of the penalty imposition in light of the petitioner's objections and revised return. The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case but provided clear directions for the reassessment process, emphasizing the importance of considering the petitioner's submissions and providing a fair hearing. In conclusion, the court set aside the assessment order, remitted the matter back to the respondent, and directed the petitioner to pay a portion of the tax amount before a fresh assessment is conducted. The judgment focused on procedural fairness and the need for the respondent to consider the petitioner's objections and revised return in the assessment process.
|
