2016 (9) TMI 922 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Order of assessment - maintainability - alternative remedy of appeal - UPVC Window - TNVAT Act, 2006 - SEZ - eligibilty of exemption from tax on sale of UPVC Doors and Windows made to M/s.Mahindra Residential Developers Limited, an approved co-developer, in Mahindira World City, Special Economic Zone (SEZ) with authorized operations of providing infrastructural facilities in SEZ, by developing residential facilities, as per the approval granted by the Government of India, during April, 2008 - Held that - sans facts the legal provisions, the decision rendered by the Court cannot be made applicable. If done so, it would amount to putting the cart before horse . The contentions raised by the petitioner not acceptable that they should be permitted to bypass the statutory appellate remedy - Writ Petition not maintainable. Liberty granted to the petitioner to file Appeal before the Appellate Authority. If the petitioner files Appeal within 30 days, the Appellate Authority shall entertain the same without reference to limitation - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order under TNVAT Act for the assessment year 2014-15 regarding exemption claim on sale of UPVC Doors and Windows to a co-developer in SEZ.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a manufacturer and dealer in UPVC Window system, challenged the assessment order dated 30.06.2016 under the TNVAT Act for the assessment year 2014-15. The Assessing Officer observed that the petitioner claimed exemption on sales to a co-developer in a Special Economic Zone (SEZ), which was questioned through a notice proposing to disallow the exemption claim.

2. The proposal contended that the co-developer's activities were not directly related to the authorized operations of the SEZ, thus making the sales ineligible for exemption. The petitioner argued for exemption based on a government notification and previous court decisions supporting their stance. They also highlighted discrepancies in the respondent's references to specific rules and regulations.

3. The respondent, in the impugned order, referred to the SEZ Act, 2005, and concluded that the residential development by the co-developer was available on lease basis to both SEZ and Domestic Tariff Area entities. The court emphasized the need to delve into the factual aspects of the project to determine its alignment with authorized SEZ operations.

4. The court held that factual inquiries about the project's nature and approval status were crucial before addressing the legal aspects raised by the petitioner. It deemed the statutory appellate remedy as the appropriate course of action for the petitioner, dismissing the Writ Petition while granting liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority within a specified timeframe.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the Writ Petition, emphasizing the importance of factual determinations before addressing legal contentions and directing the petitioner to pursue the statutory appellate remedy for a comprehensive review of the matter.