2018 (7) TMI 2019 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Alternate remedy - Opportunity of being heard - limitation period prescribed for availing the appeal remedy is also over - HELD THAT - It is rather surprising to note that though the respondent sent the revision notice dated 19. 1. 2015, even after receipt of the same, the petitioner failed to file any objections. As could be seen from the typed set of papers, the bank account of the petitioner has been attached by proceedings dated 22. 6. 2018. Hence, the petitioner alone should be blamed and the respondent cannot be found fault - However, since the re-assessment is based on mismatch of the details, as per Annexure II of the selling dealers, culled from the Departmental website, this Court is of the considered view that one opportunity can be granted to the petitioner, however, subject to a condition. The writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to pay 15% of the tax demanded within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the said condition is complied with, the petitioner is entitled to treat the impugned order as a show cause notice and submit their objections within a period of two weeks therefrom - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned order under Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for assessment year 2011-12; Delay in filing writ petition; Opportunity for petitioner to approach Assessing Officer; Discrepancy in reported purchase turnover; Reassessment based on mismatch of details; Attachment of petitioner's bank account; Condition for petitioner to pay 15% of tax demanded.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 09. 2. 2015 under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for the assessment year 2011-12. The respondent argued that the petition should be dismissed due to delay as the limitation period for appeal remedy had expired. The petitioner's Senior Counsel requested an opportunity to go before the Assessing Officer despite the delay.

The assessment for the year 2011-12 revealed a significant discrepancy in the reported purchase turnover by the petitioner. While the petitioner reported a turnover of &8377; 9,08,346, the Department found purchases amounting to &8377; 52,90,564 through verification of sales details. The respondent sought to reopen the assessment and tax the petitioner at 14.5% on the estimated sale value due to the purchase turnover exceeding &8377; 50 lakhs.

Despite receiving a revision notice and attachment of the petitioner's bank account, the petitioner failed to respond or file objections. The Court noted that the reassessment was based on a mismatch of details from selling dealers' reports on the Departmental website. Consequently, the Court granted the petitioner one opportunity to comply with a condition.

The writ petition was disposed of with a direction for the petitioner to pay 15% of the tax demanded within three weeks. Upon compliance, the petitioner could treat the impugned order as a show cause notice and submit objections within two weeks. The respondent would then provide a personal hearing and redo the assessment. Failure to comply would result in dismissal of the petition, allowing the respondent to initiate recovery proceedings. Compliance would stay the demand for balance tax until fresh orders were passed. No costs were awarded, and the connected WMP was closed.