2017 (7) TMI 1240 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of assessment Order - CST Act - year 2015-2016 - mistakes creeping in, in the assessment order - the petitioner would state that error has crept in, in the impugned assessment order since the first respondent has not complied with the order passed by this Court in its letter and spirit - Held that - With regard the averments contained in Ground c of the Grounds of the writ petition, as regards the order and direction issued in W.P.Nos.8391 and 8392 of 2016 dated 07.04.2017, the respondents have not made any specific denial in the counter affidavit and they have not even referred to those averments. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner should be permitted to go before the assessing officer for filing a petition under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act and the assessing officer has to consider such petition by affording an opportunity of personal hearing and decide the matter in accordance with law without being solely influenced by whatever observations made by the first respondent in the impugned assessment order - petition disposed off by way of remand.

Issues:
Challenging order of assessment under the CST Act for the year 2015-2016. Alleged mistakes in assessment order. Non-compliance with court order by the assessing officer. Denial of allegations by respondents. Petitioner's right to file a petition under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act.

Challenging Order of Assessment:
The petitioner, a multinational company, challenged the order of assessment under the CST Act for the year 2015-2016. The petitioner contended that certain mistakes had crept into the assessment order, which were apparent on the face of the record. One specific mistake highlighted was regarding the tabulated statement where entries were incorrectly placed. The petitioner also raised issues concerning the rejection of their claim for exemption and concessional rate due to non-production of 'C' Declaration forms. Despite explanations provided to the assessing officer and subsequent submissions of the required forms, the assessing officer did not rectify the mistakes pointed out by the petitioner.

Alleged Mistakes in Assessment Order:
The petitioner pointed out errors in the assessment order, specifically related to the rejection of their claim for exemption and concessional rate due to non-submission of 'C' Declaration forms. The petitioner had submitted the necessary forms post the initial assessment, but the assessing officer did not consider these submissions. The petitioner argued that the assessing officer's failure to comply with the court's order and directions led to errors in the assessment order. The petitioner emphasized that the errors were significant and needed rectification.

Non-Compliance with Court Order:
The assessing officer's non-compliance with the court's order was a crucial issue raised by the petitioner. The petitioner had followed the court's directions by submitting the required documents and explanations, but the assessing officer did not pass any orders despite the court's directive. This non-compliance was highlighted as a key factor contributing to the errors in the assessment order. The petitioner sought rectification of the mistakes based on the court's orders and emphasized the importance of the assessing officer adhering to the court's directions.

Denial of Allegations by Respondents:
In response to the petitioner's claims, the respondents denied the allegations made in the writ affidavit, stating that the discrepancies raised were an afterthought and could be addressed through appellate remedies available under the Act. The respondents provided reasons for the discrepancies and suggested that the petitioner could avail appropriate legal recourse if aggrieved. However, the respondents did not specifically address certain averments made by the petitioner, indicating a lack of detailed denial in their counter affidavit.

Petitioner's Right to File Petition under Section 84 of TNVAT Act:
The court, after considering the arguments presented by both parties, directed the petitioner to file a petition under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act within a specified timeframe. The court instructed the respondents to provide an opportunity for a personal hearing and to pass a speaking order on the merits of the issues raised by the petitioner in the petition filed under Section 84. Additionally, the court noted the recovery of a certain sum by bank attachment and ordered the bank attachment to be lifted. The court's decision aimed to address the issues raised by the petitioner and ensure a fair consideration of their claims under the TNVAT Act.

← Previous Next →