9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 609 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxLevy of interest u/s 42(3) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 read with section 9(2-B) of the CST Act, 1956, for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2012-13 - manufacture and sale of Batching Plan, Concrete mixtures, Concrete pump and its spares - inter-state sales - Form -C - Held that - the petitioner themselves have preferred a Revision Petition before the First Revisional Authority, as against the earlier assessment order passed under section 53 of the TNGST Act, for the assessment year 2005-2006. However, the said Revision Petition was dismissed, confirming the order of the Assessing Authority. As against said order, the petitioner preferred Second Revision, under section 55 of the TNGST Act, before the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Revision Petition), which was taken on file as R.P.No.J2/138/2015 and an order was passed on 24.06.2016, by which the petitioner s Revision Petition was allowed - Since for the identical transaction, the petitioner having succeeded before the Second Revisional Authority, it goes without saying that such a direction and order would bind the Assessing Officer. However, since the order of the Revisional Authority dated 24.06.2016, was passed subsequent to the impugned orders viz.28.08.2014, this Court is inclined to remit the matter back to the respondent to take note of the order passed by the Revisional Authority and redo the entire exercise by following the order passed in R.P.No.J2/138/2015 dated 24.06.2016, as it is stated that the transactions are identical - matter remanded - petition disposed off.
Issues:
Challenge to assessment orders imposing interest under TNVAT Act and CST Act for assessment years 2007-08 to 2012-13. Analysis: In this case, the petitioner, a registered dealer under TNVAT Act and CST Act, challenged assessment orders imposing interest under Section 42(3) of TNVAT Act and section 9(2-B) of CST Act for the years 2007-08 to 2012-13. The petitioner contended that the orders suffered from errors of law apparent on the face of the records and that the respondent failed to consider relevant provisions. They argued that the demand for interest was contrary to the provisions of the Acts. The petitioner relied on a Supreme Court judgment stating that where the tax is paid before the notice of assessment and demand, liability for interest does not arise. The petitioner also referred to Circulars issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes regarding acceptance of certain forms after assessment completion. The petitioner had previously filed Revision Petitions against an earlier assessment order, which were dismissed by the First Revisional Authority but allowed by the Second Revisional Authority. The High Court noted that since the petitioner succeeded before the Second Revisional Authority for identical transactions, that decision should bind the Assessing Officer. However, as the order from the Second Revisional Authority was passed after the impugned orders in this case, the Court decided to remit the matter back to the respondent to consider the Second Revisional Authority's order and redo the assessment exercise accordingly. As a result, the Court directed the respondent to keep the impugned proceedings in abeyance, follow the Second Revisional Authority's decision, provide a personal hearing to the petitioner, accept C-Forms if produced, and redo the assessment in line with the law. Until the fresh orders are passed, the impugned demands should not be enforced. The Writ Petitions were disposed of with no costs, and connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.
|
