2020 (10) TMI 1226 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Principles of Natural Justice - non-service of impugned order - case of petitioner is that it was only when coercive recovery proceedings were initiated on 26.09.2019 that he came to be aware of the passing of the assessment order - TNVAT Act - HELD THAT - The records were called for to ascertain the veracity or otherwise of the above submission. Compilation dated 08.09.2020 contains a copy of a statement recorded at the time of inspection dated 20.10.2014 as document No.1. This reveals that the petitioner as well as his father, J.Tezoram, were in the premises during the visit. Pre-assessment notice dated 11.06.2015 appears to have been received on the same day by an individual who has signed and affixed the seal of the petitioner entity. However it is unclear as to who the person is who has received the notice - Order of assessment dated 10.09.2015 has been returned as refused and postal cover with the aforesaid endorsement is available. The order of assessment has been served to two different addresses, and while the first order has been returned as refused , the second has been returned as left . Both acknowledgments have been placed at pages-15 and 21 of the compilation. Service is thus complete. In view of the petitioners insistence that the entity is not presently functioning, revenue was directed to make a visit of the premises and file a report. An e-mail dated 07.10.2020 from the Assistant Commissioner (ST), N.S.C. Bose Road, Assessment Circle annexing photographs of the functioning entity has been received and placed on record evidencing that the assessee/petitioner entity is carrying on the same business as before from the same address and location. There are no justification whatsoever to entertain this writ petition as the delay between 2015 and today stands unexplained. In fact, the explanation of the petitioner in regard to the delay is found to be factually incorrect - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order under Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for 2014-15 due to lack of service notification. Claim of entity being wound up in 2015 and petitioner shifting to Rajasthan. Allegation of assessment order violation of natural justice principles and lack of service. Verification of service through records and evidence of service to different addresses. Petitioner's insistence on entity not functioning countered by revenue's report showing business activity. Justification for delay in challenging assessment order.

Analysis:

The petitioner challenged an assessment order under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for the period 2014-15, claiming lack of notification service. The petitioner argued that the assessment order was not served upon him, and he only became aware of it when coercive recovery proceedings were initiated in 2019. The petitioner contended that the entity in question had been wound up in 2015, and he had moved to Rajasthan, making the current demand invalid.

The revenue countered the petitioner's claims by referring to a visit by Enforcement Officials to the entity's premises in 2014, where undisclosed business transactions were discovered. After issuing a notice in 2015, which was served on the petitioner, the assessment order was passed. The revenue denied any violation of natural justice principles, stating that the order had been served to two different addresses, with acknowledgments confirming the service.

Records were examined to verify the claims, revealing that the assessment order had indeed been returned as 'refused' with postal evidence supporting this. Additionally, a report from the revenue showed that the entity was still operational at the same address, contradicting the petitioner's assertion of non-functionality.

The court found no justification to entertain the writ petition due to unexplained delays since 2015. The petitioner's explanation for the delay was deemed factually incorrect, leading to the dismissal of the petition without costs. The revenue's report showing the entity's continued operation further supported the decision to reject the petition.