2015 (7) TMI 1352 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of assessment order - case of petitioner is that the petitioner has not been furnished with some of the details which have been sought for - TNVAT Act - HELD THAT - Without going into the merits of the matter, while setting aside the impugned orders passed by the respondent dated 29.05.2015, keeping in mind that there was inspection conducted by the Enforcement Wing Officials in the premises of the petitioner on 07.11.2013 for the purpose of VAT Audit, under Section 64 of the TNVAT Act, directs the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Peddunaickenpet Assessment Circle to furnish the names of the sellers given in the respective Annexures II of the respective assessment years to the petitioner. It is needless to mention that if the above said particulars are not available with the Assessing Officer, he is directed to make a request to the Enforcement Wing Officials who conducted surprise inspection on 07.11.2013 to provide all the information and after receiving such information, the same shall be furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner, on receipt of such information, thereafter within a period of three weeks, shall file a detailed reply for each of the assessment years and after receipt of such replies from the petitioner, it is for the Assessing Officer to pass detailed orders on merits, by applying his mind independently on all issues uninfluenced by the proposal of Enforcement Authority - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment orders for multiple years based on defects in notices issued by the respondent regarding ineligible claim of ITC and failure to provide details of sellers for cross verification.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a company, challenged seven assessment orders for the years 2007-08 to 2013-14 due to defects raised by the respondent related to the claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC). The petitioner contended that the respondent failed to provide details of sellers who did not report corresponding sales in Annexure II, hindering the petitioner's ability to respond adequately. The petitioner sought specific information on sellers' names and addresses, highlighting the lack of cooperation from the Assessing Officer in providing necessary details. The petitioner emphasized the importance of these details for a fair decision-making process. The petitioner's counsel argued that without the required information, challenging the assessment orders before the appellate authority would be difficult, and the petitioner would be unable to address the deficiencies in the assessment process.

The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, argued that the petitioner had conducted business with sellers listed in Annexure II of the assessment years, collected during an inspection by Enforcement Wing Officials. The respondent contended that since the sellers' details were available in the annexures, the petitioner's request for additional seller information was unwarranted. However, the Court found merit in the petitioner's argument, noting that the notices issued by the respondent indicated that the sellers' names had been identified during cross verification. The Court emphasized the importance of providing all relevant details before finalizing orders to ensure a fair decision-making process.

In its judgment, the Court set aside the impugned assessment orders and directed the Assistant Commissioner to provide the names of sellers listed in Annexure II for each assessment year to the petitioner. If the required information was not available with the Assessing Officer, they were instructed to request it from the Enforcement Wing Officials who conducted the inspection. The petitioner was given three weeks to file detailed replies based on the provided information, after which the Assessing Officer was tasked with independently reviewing the issues and passing detailed orders on merits without influence from the Enforcement Authority's proposal. The Court's decision aimed to ensure a fair assessment process by providing the petitioner with necessary details for a comprehensive response and independent review of the case.