2021 (7) TMI 1280 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of assessment order - the argument raised is that it is only in the impugned order that the pages of the books relied upon have been indicated and the Assessing Authority did not at any point in time furnish the details of comparison and reconciliation of the details to the petitioner - HELD THAT - Several notices have been issued by the Assessing Authority calling upon the petitioner to appear and collect the records sought for. Two such notices are dated 09.08.2017 and 27.08.2018 calling upon the petitioner to appear on 23.08.2017 and 11.09.2018 respectively to collect the records. There was no response. Finally to notice dated 16.07.2019 calling upon the petitioner to appear on 26.07.2019, the petitioner had appeared on 20.11.2019 and 03.12.2019 and received all documents. There is thus no question in my mind that the petitioner has delayed the matters substantially by not appearing before the Assessing Authority and taking the copies of documents that were being supplied and ultimately the exercise was completed only in the first week of December, 2019, despite the order of this Court having been passed in February, 2017. The argument raised is that it is only in the impugned order that the pages of the books relied upon have been indicated and the Assessing Authority did not at any point in time furnish the details of comparison and reconciliation of the details to the petitioner. However, reconciliation of the difference in stock is an exercise that is to be undertaken by the assessee in explaining its position and in support of its returns and it is too much to expect the Assessing Authority to mark the relevant pages of the documents relied upon by him in support of the Departmental reconciliation - the petitioner has not made out any legal flaw, in the impugned order either on the aspect of violation of principles of natural justice or on merits, to warrant interference therein. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to assessment orders under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for the periods 2010-11 to 2015-16.

The judgment pertains to a challenge against six assessment orders dated 18.03.2020 under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for the periods 2010-11 to 2015-16. Initially, the petitioner had challenged earlier assessment orders dated 30.12.2016, which were set aside by the Court directing the petitioner to treat them as show cause notices. The petitioner was to submit objections within ten days of receiving copies of documents and the Assessing Authority was to redo the assessments within 15 days of receiving objections. No coercive action was to be taken until fresh assessments were completed. The petitioner delayed the process significantly by not appearing before the Assessing Authority to collect documents, which were eventually received in December 2019. The Assessing Authority called upon the petitioner to explain its stand, but the petitioner only sought adjournments without making a genuine attempt to appear and clarify. The Assessing Authority concluded that there was suppression based on stock comparison and incriminating records provided to the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the Assessing Authority did not provide details of the comparison and reconciliation, but the Court held that it was the petitioner's responsibility to explain and substantiate its returns. The Court found no legal flaw in the impugned order and dismissed the writ petitions, stating that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any violation of natural justice or merit warranting interference.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the assessment orders under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for the periods 2010-11 to 2015-16. The petitioner's delay in collecting documents and failure to genuinely explain its stand led to the Assessing Authority's conclusion of suppression. The Court held that the petitioner did not establish any legal flaw in the assessment orders, rejecting claims of violation of natural justice or merit. The judgment highlights the importance of timely compliance and genuine engagement in tax assessment proceedings to avoid adverse outcomes.