9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 1220 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxValidity of order of assessment - TNGST Act, 1959 - Vaccum Cleaner - Excise Duty paid on the MRP as per the (Union Budget) Notification issued by the Central Excise (vide amended Central Excise Notification No.13/2002)CE(NT) dated 01.03.02 - verification of invoices in terms of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner - issue only for the two assessment years viz., 1998-1999 and 1999- 2000 - whether the dealer had charged Maximum Retail Price as sales price? - Held that - before coming to any conclusion, a thorough verification of the whole invoices raised by the appellant is felt necessary so as to whether the appellant have charged MRP as sale price in the invoices, if charged the assessment made has to be sustained - matter remanded back to the Assessing Officer with a direction to verify all the invoices raised during the relevant assessment years in respect of sale of vaccum cleaner and to find out whether the appellant have charged MRP as sale price and to pass appropriate orders. Imposition of penalty u/s.12(3) (b) of the Act - Held that - As the issue relating to turnover is remanded, the issue relating to penalty is also remanded to the Assessing Officer with a direction to consider penalty levy if need be. Writ petition allowed - matters remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
Issues: Challenge to assessment orders under TNGST Act for years 1989-1999 and 1999-2000.
Analysis: 1. The petitioners challenged the assessment orders for the years 1989-1999 and 1999-2000 under the Tamilnadu General Sales Tax Act (TNGST Act, 1959). The Appellate Assistant Commissioner directed the Assessing Officer to verify invoices and determine if Maximum Retail Price (MRP) was charged as the sales price. The petitioners contended that this direction was not followed in the subsequent assessment order, leading to the writ petitions challenging the orders. 2. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner's direction was specific, emphasizing the need for a thorough verification of invoices to ascertain if MRP was charged as the sale price. The failure to comply with this direction by the Assessing Officer warranted interference by the Court. The petitioners highlighted that the issue only arose for the years 1998-1999 and 1999-2000, indicating a change in approach by the Assessing Officer from the year 2000 onwards regarding invoice scrutiny. 3. The petitioners also raised the issue of paying Excise Duty on MRP as per a specific Union Budget Notification, which should not be used as a basis for calculating sales tax. The Court found merit in the petitioners' contentions and set aside the impugned orders dated 30.01.2004 and 30.04.2004, remanding the matters back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in line with the directions of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Kancheepuram. 4. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to appellate directions in assessments under the TNGST Act and ensuring proper verification of invoices to determine the correct sales price. The Court's decision to remand the matters back for fresh consideration aimed at upholding procedural fairness and legal compliance in tax assessments.
|
