2016 (10) TMI 939 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Power of revision of the assessment by the AO - Concessional rate of tax - delayed submission of forms under CST Act - Held that - In the case of ARUL MURUGAN AND COMPANY 1982 (11) TMI 143) and the decision of the Hon blel Supreme Court, in the case VIPRO FOUNDRY ENGINEERS LIMITED 1990 (12) TMI 302 , the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes issued Circular dated 30.04.1993, as to how the Assessing Officer has to act when Declarations in Form- E and Form- F are produced after the assessment is completed - Decided in favor of the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to intimation by Assessing Officer regarding revision of assessments and acceptance of Industrial Input Certificate.
2. Challenge to assessment orders for multiple years, specifically regarding tax rate on sale of Rubber Profile.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a registered dealer under TNVAT Act and CST Act, challenged the Assessing Officer's intimation stating inability to revise assessments and refusal to accept Industrial Input Certificate. The first set of Writ Petitions challenged this intimation, emphasizing the Assessing Officer's incorrect tax imposition without the certificate. The petitioner's non-response to pre-revision notices was addressed, with the court noting the legal issue at hand for consideration despite dissatisfaction with the explanation.

2. The second set of Writ Petitions contested assessment orders for 2009-10 to 2012-13, focusing on the tax rate applied to the sale of Rubber Profile. The Assessing Officer levied tax at 12% due to the absence of the Industrial Input Certificate, despite the petitioner's possession of the certificate post-assessment. Referring to relevant precedents and circulars, the court found the Assessing Officer's refusal to accept the certificate unjustified. The court allowed the first set of Writ Petitions, setting aside the intimation and directing a fresh assessment considering the certificate.

3. For the second set of Writ Petitions, the court set aside the impugned assessment orders related to the tax rate on Rubber Profile, following the decision in the first set of Writ Petitions. The petitioner was granted the opportunity to pay disputed taxes, present materials, and contest revision of assessments on other grounds. The court directed a reassessment based on the Industrial Input Certificate for the specific issue of the Rubber Profile sale, while allowing the petitioner to address other assessment aspects within specified timelines.

4. Considering the overall circumstances and the precedent set by the court, the judgment allowed the Writ Petitions, set aside the intimation and assessment orders, and provided a structured process for reassessment and objection submission by the petitioner. The court emphasized adherence to legal principles and precedents in tax assessments, ensuring fair treatment and due process for the petitioner.