2017 (12) TMI 1649 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Prayer to consider the monthly return submitted on 19. 09. 2014 - Held that - If a genuine mistake has crept-in, then, within the time permitted under the Statute, the dealer is entitled to file revised Form WW or revised return. In fact, this has been done by the petitioner and along with the revised Form WW. This Court is of the view that the petition filed by the petitioner dated 21. 08. 2017 received by the State Tax Officer on the same day, should be considered on merits - the respondent should also take into consideration the revised monthly return submitted on 19. 09. 2014 - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Consideration of monthly return submitted on 19.09.2014
2. Consideration of petition filed under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 dated 17.05.2016
3. Entitlement to file revised Form WW or revised return due to a genuine mistake

Analysis:
Issue 1: The petitioner sought relief for the consideration of the monthly return submitted on 19.09.2014. The respondent, in the impugned assessment order, claimed that the revised monthly return was not enclosed with the objections dated 17.05.2016. However, the petitioner contended that the revised return was personally submitted to the respondent on the mentioned date. The Court examined a Photostat copy of the revised return showing receipt by the Commercial Tax Officer on 19.09.2014, indicating it should be available in the assessment file. The Court found the observation that the petitioner did not enclose the revised return to be incorrect.

Issue 2: The petitioner also sought consideration of the petition filed under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 dated 17.05.2016. The Court noted that the petitioner had filed a revised Form WW along with a request for the respondent to revise the assessment. The revised Form WW was received by the State Tax Officer on 21.08.2017. The Court held that if a genuine mistake had occurred, the dealer was entitled to file a revised Form WW or return within the statutory time limit.

Issue 3: The Court emphasized that if a genuine mistake had been made, the dealer should be allowed to rectify it within the statutory timeline. The Court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 21.08.2017 and the revised monthly return from 19.09.2014, passing appropriate orders in accordance with the law and after providing an opportunity for a personal hearing to the petitioner. The respondent was instructed not to take any coercive action against the petitioner for tax recovery until the completion of the directed actions within six weeks from the date of the order.