2017 (7) TMI 1394 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Seeking payment of arrears of tax and penalty - petitioner has not submitted their objections nor approached the Assessing Officer seeking extension of time - HELD THAT - The petitioner has paid 25% of the disputed Tax and the Department was also not vigilant in immediately proceeding with the matter after issuance of the notice dated 24.06.2016, and they have initiated action only on 20.04.2017, this Court is inclined to grant an opportunity to the petitioner subject to certain condition. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to pay a further sum of ₹ 5,00,000/- towards the disputed tax within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioner complies with the said order, then the petitioner would be entitled to submit their objections to the impugned notice dated 24.06.2016 within a period of seven days thereafter. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to show cause notice for tax assessment under TNVAT Act and CST Act for multiple assessment years.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the CST Act and TNVAT Act, challenged a show cause notice proposing to determine turnover for specific assessment years. The notice was issued following an inspection and required the petitioner to submit objections within 15 days. The petitioner failed to respond until receiving a subsequent notice demanding tax payment and penalty within 48 hours. The petitioner then approached the court, citing business contingencies for the delay. The petitioner had paid 25% of the disputed tax before the court hearing and requested an extension to respond to the initial notice.

The court considered the petitioner's partial payment and the delayed action by the department in proceeding with the matter. Consequently, the court granted the petitioner an opportunity subject to conditions. The petitioner was directed to pay an additional sum towards the disputed tax within two weeks. Upon compliance, the petitioner could submit objections within seven days, followed by a personal hearing by the respondent for assessment. If the petitioner met the conditions, the demand for the remaining tax and penalty would be put on hold pending final orders. Failure to comply would result in dismissal of the writ petitions, allowing authorities to proceed as per the law.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petitions with the specified directions, without imposing any costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed as a result of the judgment.