2019 (2) TMI 1821 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of assessment order - TNVAT Act - assessment not completed even though revision notices issued - HELD THAT - The case on hand is a classic example where the appellant has taken the statutory procedure adopted by the respondent as an empty formality. The facts clearly disclose that the appellant had not been cooperating in the assessment proceedings. Though the appellant received the revision notices dated 18.1.2016, they did not submit their reply within the time stipulated i.e 15 days, but gave the reply only on 14.6.2016. Even thereafter, several opportunities were given and a personal hearing was also fixed on 29.10.2018 and the notice of personal hearing was stated to have been received by the appellant on 25.10.2018. Nothing prevented the appellant from approaching the respondent if there is any difficulty in producing the records. The attitude of the appellant needs to be deprecated. Equally, it is not known as to why the Assessing Officer did not take steps to complete the assessment even though the revision notices were issued on 18.1.2016. There have been cases where the Assessing Officers completed the assessments immediately after the expiry of time limit stipulated in the notices if no reply is filed. It is also not known as to why such a procedure was not followed in the appellant-s case, presumably for the reasons best known. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment orders under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for multiple years.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged the common order dismissing writ petitions against assessment orders for various years. The appellant failed to cooperate in assessment proceedings, delaying responses and not attending a scheduled personal hearing. The court criticized the appellant's lack of cooperation and questioned why the Assessing Officer did not complete the assessments promptly after issuing revision notices. The court noted that the Assessing Officer could have proceeded with assessments if no reply was received within the stipulated time. The Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petitions but allowed the appellant to file statutory appeals within two weeks.

The court found no error in the Single Judge's order and dismissed the writ appeals without costs. The time limit for filing appeals was extended by two weeks from the date of receiving the judgment. The judgment highlighted the importance of cooperation in assessment proceedings and criticized the appellant's attitude towards the process. The court emphasized the need for timely responses and compliance with statutory requirements. The decision upheld the Single Judge's order while granting the appellant an opportunity to pursue statutory appeals within the specified timeframe.