2017 (1) TMI 401 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Jurisdiction - reorganisation of Department - whether the 1st respondent is aware of the fact that already for the same assessment years, orders have been passed by the 2nd respondent? - Held that - The 1st respondent has informed that the files do not disclose the facts nor he was apprised of the same and therefore, unaware about the earlier orders passed by the 2nd respondent. Thus, taking into account all the above facts and circumstances, the impugned orders call for interference. Matter on remand - there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to transmit the files concerning the petitioner to the 1st respondent and on receipt of the same, the 1st respondent, after making thorough study of the entire proceedings, shall proceed in accordance with law - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging assessment orders under TNVAT Act for years 2006-07 to 2010-11; Jurisdiction of revision of assessment under Section 22(5) of TNVAT Act; Parallel proceedings initiated by 1st respondent for same assessment years as 2nd respondent's orders; Imposition of penalty separately under Section 22(5) of TNVAT Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under TNVAT Act and Central Sales Tax Act, challenged assessment orders for years 2006-07 to 2010-11. The impugned orders were revision of assessment under Section 22(5) of TNVAT Act by the 1st respondent after reorganization, previously under the 2nd respondent. The challenge was based on jurisdictional grounds due to a notice not received by the petitioner, leading to parallel proceedings with 2nd respondent's completed assessments.

The petitioner had earlier filed petitions for rectification of assessment errors with the 2nd respondent, which were dismissed for non-appearance. Subsequently, the petitioner challenged these orders in separate writ petitions, leading to setting aside of the orders by the Revisional Authority. The impugned orders by the 1st respondent were initiated without knowledge of 2nd respondent's prior orders, prompting the court to set aside the orders and remand the matters to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration.

In a separate writ petition, the petitioner challenged a penalty imposed by the 2nd respondent under Section 22(5) of TNVAT Act. Citing legal precedents, the petitioner argued that a penalty order cannot be passed separately. The court, considering the quashing of 1st respondent's assessment orders, allowed this writ petition as well, leaving all issues open and closing the case without costs.

In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petitions challenging assessment orders under TNVAT Act for years 2006-07 to 2010-11, set aside the impugned orders by the 1st respondent, and remanded the matters for fresh consideration. Additionally, a separate writ petition challenging a penalty imposed by the 2nd respondent was also allowed, emphasizing that penalty orders cannot be passed separately under Section 22(5) of TNVAT Act.