2020 (7) TMI 806 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of assessment order - Best assessment order - concessional rate of tax as per Section 3(4) of TNVAT Act - HELD THAT - The grounds raised by the petitioner, are factually in nature and do not fall under any of the exceptions for them to over look the appellate remedy and invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is settled proposition of law that barring a few exceptions, this Court will not entertainn a Writ Petition on grounds touching upon the errors on the facts. The petitioner has not raised any exceptional grounds for this Court to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction and thereby interfere with the impugned proceedings. Nevertheless, since this Court is of the view that the grounds requires consideration, it would be appropriate to grant liberty to the petitioner to challenge the impugned proceedings before the Appellate Authority. The petitioner is granted liberty to file an appeal as against the impugned proceedings dated 13.01.2016, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - The Writ Petition is disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Assessment of taxable turnover under Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2012-13, applicability of penalty under Section 40(2) of the Act, availability of appeal remedy before the Appellate Commissioner (CT), and the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a dealer in electrical goods, was assessed by the respondent for violating conditions under Section 3(4) of the Act by collecting tax on sales turnover, leading to a revised notice proposing to confirm the levy and assess the petitioner on Best of Judgment under Section 3(2) for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The respondent determined the total taxable turnover and tax due, which the petitioner challenged in the present Writ Petition.

The petitioner argued that the respondent erred in assessing the turnover at 14.5% per annum and contended that only penalty under Section 40(2) should be levied if tax was collected as per Section 3(4) of the Act. On the other hand, the Government Advocate asserted that the petitioner inaccurately referenced sales invoices and was not entitled to the concessional tax rate as per Section 3(4) of the Act.

The High Court acknowledged that an appeal remedy existed before the Appellate Commissioner (CT), which the petitioner did not utilize. The Court noted that factual grounds raised by the petitioner did not warrant bypassing the appellate remedy and invoking the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. It emphasized that the Court generally does not entertain Writ Petitions based on factual errors unless exceptional grounds are presented.

Consequently, the High Court granted the petitioner liberty to appeal against the impugned proceedings within 30 days and directed the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal on its merits, ensuring a fair hearing for both parties and concluding the proceedings within 60 days. The Court clarified that it did not express any views on the merits of the grounds raised by the petitioner and closed the Writ Petition without costs, allowing the petitioner to address all grounds before the Appellate Authority.