2016 (7) TMI 369 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Writ petition challenging the order of assessment dated 31.7.2014 - The specific case of the petitioner is that they filed Form W by way of e-filing and it is well within the time limit prescribed under Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007. (TNVAT) - Held that - it is clear that the respondent is well aware of the fact that Form W has been filed by the petitioner within the time frame. If that be the case, the observations contained in both the impugned orders are wholly erroneous. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent to consider Form W, which has been filed by the petitioner online and which has been admitted by the respondent himself to have been filed within the time frame. - Decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to assessment order and rejection of petition under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act based on the timely filing of Form W.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, filed a writ petition challenging the assessment order dated 31.7.2014 and the rejection of their petition under Section 84 dated 16.3.2015.

2. The main issue at hand was whether the petitioner filed Form W within the prescribed time limit. The petitioner claimed to have filed Form W through e-filing within the stipulated time, supported by computer-generated acknowledgments.

3. Despite the petitioner's representation requesting more time after receiving a pre-assessment notice, the respondent proceeded to assess the petitioner ex parte, alleging non-filing of objections. The respondent's approach was deemed improper as they should have either accepted or rejected the adjournment request before proceeding with the assessment.

4. The petitioner's petition under Section 84 was rejected based on the respondent's assertion that Form W was not filed within the prescribed time, and no proof was provided to support the claim.

5. The respondent, through the Additional Government Pleader, argued that the assessment orders were justified as per Section 18(3) of the Act, stating that the credit would lapse to the Government if invoices and related documents were not produced within 180 days of zero-rated sales.

6. Notably, the respondent acknowledged in their response that Form W was indeed filed within the time frame by the petitioner, contradicting the basis of the impugned orders. This acknowledgment highlighted the erroneous nature of the observations in the assessment orders.

7. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned orders, and remitted the matter back to the respondent for reconsideration of Form W, which was confirmed to have been timely filed online. The respondent was directed to comply with this decision within eight weeks from the date of the order, with no costs imposed.