2018 (3) TMI 1941 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Reversal of ITC - the assessment are sought to be re-opened and the ITC availed by the dealers are directed to be reversed - mismatch in books - HELD THAT - The issue involved in these writ petitions is mismatch and such issue is already covered by the decision of this Court in M/S. JKM GRAPHICS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER 2017 (3) TMI 536 - MADRAS HIGH COURT . This Court, in the said decision, has directed the Assessing Officer to evaluate a centralised mechanism exclusively to deal with the cases of mismatch and to do some exercise, before issuing a notice - It was held in the said case that this Court is fully convinced that the procedure adopted by the respondent, Assessing Officers in all these cases are half baked attempts, which have not yielded results and these cases are before this Court or before the Appellate Authorities and all that the Assessing Officers can record is that they have issued show cause notices or passed orders reversing the Input Tax Credit with no appreciable impact on the revenue collection. Matters are remanded to the respective Assessing Officers, to undertake a fresh exercise by conducting a thorough enquiry in consultation with the Assessing Officers of the other end dealer. Considering the fact that the Assessing Officer has to re-do the assessment, in view of the said decision of this Court, this writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set side. Consequently, the matters are remitted back to the Assessing Officer to re-do the assessment commencing from the stage of issuing notice of proposal, after following guidelines/procedures issued by this Court in the above referred order. The Assessing Officer shall also give personal hearing to the petitioner before finalizing the order of assessment. Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner filed writ petitions seeking Writs of Certiorari to quash records of respondent for assessment years 2010-11 to 2015-16 due to mismatch issues. The main issue is the mismatch, previously addressed in a court decision directing the Assessing Officer to establish a centralised mechanism before issuing notices.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought relief through writ petitions to quash records of the respondent for various assessment years due to mismatch issues. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the core issue in these writ petitions is the mismatch, a matter previously addressed in a court decision dated 01.03.2017. The court had directed the Assessing Officer to set up a centralised mechanism to handle mismatch cases before issuing notices. The court emphasized the need for a thorough enquiry and consultation with Assessing Officers of the other dealer to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and protect revenue interests. It was highlighted that a centralised mechanism is crucial to prevent unilateral actions by Assessing Officers without proper coordination, potentially jeopardizing the interests of the revenue.

The respondent, represented by the Government Advocate (Tax), acknowledged the court's previous order and agreed that the Assessing Officer must re-do the assessment following the guidelines and procedures outlined in the said order. The court, after considering the submissions from both sides, allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the impugned orders. The matters were remitted back to the Assessing Officer to re-do the assessment, starting from issuing a notice of proposal, while ensuring a personal hearing for the petitioner before finalizing the assessment order. The Assessing Officer was directed to complete the entire process within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the court's order. No costs were awarded in this decision.

In conclusion, the court's judgment focused on addressing the mismatch issues raised by the petitioner through writ petitions. By reiterating the importance of a centralised mechanism and proper procedures in handling mismatch cases, the court aimed to streamline the assessment process and protect the interests of both dealers and revenue. The decision emphasized the need for coordination among Assessing Officers and a fair opportunity for dealers to present their case during the assessment process.