2017 (11) TMI 1950 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Violation of principles of natural justice - mismatch between the purchases effected and Annexure of the other end dealer - HELD THAT - Similar cases were dealt with by this Court and a decision has been taken in the case of M/S. JKM GRAPHICS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER 2017 (3) TMI 536 - MADRAS HIGH COURT . In the said decision, this Court indicated certain guidelines as to how the assessment should have proceeded in cases where the revision is based on details culled out upon verification of the Departmental website. Therefore, the second respondent, being a new officer, should have afforded an opportunity to the petitioner especially when the revision notices were issued in the year 2015. Thus, this Court is unable to approve the manner, in which, the impugned assessments have been completed. The matters are remitted back to the second respondent for a fresh consideration. The second respondent shall direct the petitioner to appear before her and furnish all details as sought for by them, after which, the petitioner should be given a reasonable time to submit further objections - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment orders under Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act 2006 based on violation of legal principles and natural justice.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered dealer, challenged revision notices issued for assessment years 2012-13 to 2014-15 due to alleged mismatch between purchases and reports from the other dealer. The petitioner argued that blame cannot be assigned if the selling dealer fails to report turnover and pay tax, citing legal precedents [(2012) 50 VST 179 (MAD.), (2013) 60 VST 283 (MAD.), W.P.No. 9265 of 2014]. The petitioner requested access to records to disprove allegations.

Regarding purchase-related allegations, the petitioner denied suppression without access to complete records and check post details. The petitioner stressed that without records, conclusions of suppression and penalty imposition were premature.

The delay in assessment completion by the predecessor officer raised concerns. Subsequent notices for earlier years were issued, and the petitioner reiterated requests for records and documents, but communication was lacking. The petitioner appeared for a personal hearing but faced challenges due to a change in the assessing officer.

The second respondent's failure to provide records and documents, despite repeated requests, led to incomplete assessments. The petitioner highlighted the necessity of access to records for a fair assessment process.

Citing a previous case [(2017) 99 VST 343], the Court outlined assessment guidelines based on website verifications. The Court criticized the second respondent's handling of the assessments and remitted the matters for fresh consideration. The Court directed the second respondent to provide necessary details, allow time for objections, conduct a personal hearing, and redo the assessments lawfully.

In conclusion, the writ petitions were allowed, impugned orders were set aside, and matters were remitted for a fair reassessment process. The Court emphasized the importance of following legal principles and natural justice in tax assessments.