2017 (11) TMI 134 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of assessment order - belated approach - the impugned assessment orders were passed on 06.01.2016 and 30.06.2016 respectively, and the petitioner has neither exhausted the appellate remedy available under the Act, nor approached this Court earlier, questioning the validity and correctness of the assessments - Held that - except, for the assessment year 2013-14, the tax demanded for all other three assessment years are less than ₹ 1,00,000/-. The explanation now offered by the petitioner before this Court is that the petitioner has got all the details to establish that the allegations made against them is not sustainable, and if the details of the web-report has been furnished to the petitioner with an opportunity to cross-examine the third party, then, they would be in a position to establish their case that those transactions have no connection with them, or, it was in the course of normal business practice, and there is no suppression of turnover - Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to give one more opportunity to the petitioner to go before the Assessing Officer to substantiate their case - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Petitioner challenging assessment orders under TNVAT Act for multiple years, belated approach for judicial review, minimal turnover and tax amounts, request for opportunity to substantiate case, court's decision to remand matter to Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

Analysis:

1. Challenge to Assessment Orders:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the TNVAT Act, contested assessment orders for the years 2011-2015. The petitioner had not utilized the available appellate remedy or approached the court earlier to challenge the assessments. The delay was attributed to reliance on a consultant's advice regarding a pending mismatch issue before the court. The petitioner became aware of the court's decision on the matter only after seeking legal counsel.

2. Minimal Turnover and Tax Demands:
The turnover amounts for the respective assessment years were relatively low, with tax demands below ?1,00,000 except for the year 2013-14. The petitioner contended that they possessed evidence to refute the allegations against them and requested an opportunity to present detailed information to disprove any connection to the disputed transactions.

3. Court's Decision and Directions:
Considering the circumstances, the court granted the petitioner another chance to present their case before the Assessing Officer. Despite the early issuance of assessment orders, the respondent had not initiated tax and penalty recovery. The court directed the petitioner to pay 15% of the disputed tax for each year within three weeks. Compliance would allow the petitioner to treat the orders as show cause notices, enabling them to submit objections with supporting records. The respondent was instructed to provide necessary information upon request. Following the petitioner's response, a personal hearing would be granted, and the assessment would be redone lawfully. No coercive action would be taken during this process.

4. Conclusion:
The court disposed of all writ petitions, imposing the payment condition on the petitioner for further proceedings. Failure to comply would lead to the respondent proceeding with recovery actions as per the original assessment orders. No costs were awarded, and associated miscellaneous petitions were closed as a result of this judgment.