2017 (6) TMI 1341 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Filing of the option letter - allegation of non-filing of monthly return electronically - TNVAT Act - HELD THAT - Such filing is disputed by the other side specifically by contending that some records are fabricated by the petitioner. Therefore, in view of the above said disputed question of fact, this Court is not inclined to interfere, as it is open to the petitioner to raise the contention before the Appellate Authority, who is also the fact finding authority. Insofar as the next contention viz., filing of the monthly return electronically is concerned, again this Court is not inclined to interfere, since it is an admitted fact that the petitioner has chosen to file the returns after a period of three years i.e., in the year 2015. Accordingly, without expressing any view on the merits of the contentions raised by the respective parties, these writ petitions are disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to agitate the matter before the Appellate Authority by way of filing an appeal, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any such appeal is filed, the Appellate Authority shall consider the same on its own merits and in accordance with law, without reference to the period of limitation. Petition closed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Challenging assessment orders for the years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 based on alleged non-filing of optional letter and electronic monthly returns.

Analysis:
The petitioner contested the assessment orders dated 23.01.2017 for the years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. The Assessing Officer had issued a proposal notice on 14.08.2015, highlighting alleged defects - non-filing of optional letter for 2013-2014 under section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act and failure to submit monthly returns electronically. The petitioner's counsel argued that they had indeed filed the optional letter on time and provided proof. Regarding electronic monthly returns, they cited a circular stating the requirement only applied from October 2014, not relevant to the assessment years in question.

The respondent, in a counter affidavit, disputed the petitioner's claims. They alleged that the optional letters submitted in 2012 and 2013 were fabricated records without proper official designation and seal. Additionally, the respondent pointed out that the petitioner only submitted the returns in 2015, three years later, making reliance on the circular invalid. The High Court noted the conflicting claims regarding the optional letter filing and electronic returns. As these were disputed questions of fact, the Court declined to intervene, suggesting the petitioner raise these issues before the Appellate Authority, the fact-finding body. The Court maintained that the petitioner could present their arguments before the Appellate Authority, granting them the liberty to file an appeal within four weeks. The Appellate Authority was instructed to assess the matter impartially and in accordance with the law, disregarding any limitations. The original assessment orders were to be returned, and no costs were awarded. The case was closed, pending further action by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority.