9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 4 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxInter-State sale - error apparent on the face of the assessment order - Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - Held that - the second respondent is vested with sufficient powers to examine a petition filed under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act to see as to whether any error which is apparent on the face of the assessment order - the proper course to be adopted by the second respondent is to consider the petition and take a decision on the same and by passing a reasoned order - only issue to be seen is whether the petitioner had produced the original Form-C and Form-F declarations before the learned Departmental representative, who is stated to have verified - petition allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
Challenge to order under Central Sales Tax Act for assessment year 2010-2011. Petitioner seeks direction to consider petition under Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act) for errors in assessment order. Analysis: The petitioner challenged an order dismissing their petition against an assessment dated 19.12.2013 under the Central Sales Tax Act for the year 2010-2011. The petitioner requested the second respondent to review their petition filed under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act dated 01.08.2015, claiming they had submitted original declaration forms which were verified by the Departmental representative. Despite the petition being submitted in 2015 and reminders sent, it remained pending. The court acknowledged the second respondent's authority to examine such petitions for errors in assessment orders and directed them to consider the petitioner's submissions, conduct a hearing, and issue a reasoned order within eight weeks from the date of the court's order. The court emphasized that the second respondent must not delay the decision on the petition indefinitely and should either direct the petitioner to produce the original declaration forms or examine them independently. The court stressed that the petition under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act must be resolved on its merits and in accordance with the law. Consequently, the court ordered the second respondent to review the petitioner's petition, provide a hearing, and deliver a reasoned judgment within the specified timeframe. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
|
