9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 324 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxValidity of assessment order - TNGST Act - Held that - The Assessing Officer, in his parawise comments, has specifically stated that the petitioner has not produced documentary evidence, as they have charged market value in the sale invoices and they have not produced any evidence that they have received more amount than the sale price. Further, the petitioner did not produce the prevailing market rate for the relevant period, viz., 2003-04. This averment is reiterated in more than one place in the parawise comments - the mater is remanded to the second respondent or fresh consideration, and petitioner is at liberty to produce all necessary documents to substantiate their claims - matter on remand.
Issues involved:
Challenge to order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, consideration of documentary evidence in appeal, remand for fresh consideration of the matter. Analysis: 1. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking to quash the order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner in A.P.No.TNGST -1/15, dated 25.11.2016, and requested for fresh orders to be passed by discussing the grounds in the Appeal Memorandum filed under Section 51 of the TNVAT Act, 2006. 2. The petitioner contested the order of assessment passed by the first respondent under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, for the year 2003-04. They claimed to have faced difficulties due to a ban on import of SKO, resulting in selling at a lower price than the purchase price. The petitioner submitted records to support their claim, which were allegedly not considered by the Assessing Officer and the Appellate Authority. 3. The Assessing Officer mentioned in parawise comments that the petitioner failed to provide documentary evidence supporting their claim of selling at a lower price. The petitioner was required to demonstrate that the market price of SKO and the sale price were equal or lesser, which they allegedly did not do. The prevailing market rate for the relevant period was also not produced by the petitioner. 4. The High Court, considering the pending nature of the Writ Petition since April 2017 and an interim stay order, decided not to delve into the factual inquiry of document submission. To facilitate a prompt resolution and enable the correction of the tax rate, the Court remanded the matter to the second respondent for fresh consideration. 5. The Court allowed the Writ Petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the second respondent to reevaluate the matter. The petitioner was given three days to submit all necessary documents to support their claims. If the documents satisfied the second respondent, fresh orders were to be passed; otherwise, proceedings would be closed. The petitioner was advised to explore other remedies under the Act if dissatisfied with the outcome. 6. The Writ Petition was allowed on the specified terms with no costs, and the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition was closed accordingly.
|
