2017 (8) TMI 85 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Revision of assessment - mismatch between the Annexure 1 and Annexure 2 returns filed by the petitioner and the other end dealer - Held that - It may be true that unless and until the dealer furnishes the proper details, the Assessing officer cannot embark upon an enquiry - In the present cases, the Assessing Officer has taken certain efforts to furnish the invoice numbers and other details, though it may be true in respect of certain transactions, the full details have not been mentioned. In any event, wherever full details have been given, the dealer was bound to give proper explanation. If the dealer wants further information, he should have asked the Assessing Officer by submitting a representation. However, in the instant case, the dealer did not resort to such a procedure, but merely, submitted an objection without giving any proper details and only referring to two judgments of this Court. Therefore, substantial part of the fault lies on the dealer. The petitioner can be afforded one more opportunity to explain with regard to the transactions where full details have been given to them - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging assessment orders under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act for multiple years due to mismatch between returns filed by the petitioner and the other dealer.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the TNVAT Act, challenged assessment orders for 2012-13 to 2015-16 due to discrepancies in Annexure 1 and Annexure 2 returns. Show cause notices were issued proposing revised assessments based on the discrepancies. The petitioner submitted objections, claiming inadequate details in the revision notices, lack of inquiry, and missing information like commodity codes and invoice numbers.

Upon review, the court found the objections insufficient, noting that while some transaction details were missing or incomplete, the petitioner failed to reconcile the discrepancies or provide a proper explanation. The court emphasized the dealer's duty to factually explain the issues raised in the revision notice and criticized the petitioner's vague objections. Reference was made to a previous case directing Assessing Officers on conducting inquiries in such cases.

The court acknowledged the Assessing Officer's efforts to provide details but highlighted the dealer's responsibility to cooperate and seek further information if needed. It stressed the importance of a thorough enquiry before revising assessments based on inaccessible departmental website data. The court directed the petitioner to explain transactions with complete details and request additional information where needed, emphasizing the dealer's obligation to cooperate and provide comprehensive representations.

The court disposed of the writ petitions by directing the petitioner to pay 15% of the disputed tax for each assessment year within fifteen days. Compliance would allow the petitioner to respond to the assessment orders, seek additional information, and have the Assessing Officer conduct a thorough enquiry following specified principles. Failure to pay within the stipulated time would result in dismissal of the petitions, with the option to pursue appellate remedies under the Act. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.