2017 (11) TMI 1376 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Suppression of facts - purchase omission - sales suppression - levy of tax and penalty u/s 27(3)(c) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 - Held that - the petitioner wanted the respondent to accept the monthly returns. However, the respondent, construing the representation dated 31.3.2017 received on 03.4.2017, as an objection, completed the assessment. In the representation dated 31.3.2017, the petitioner sought for an adjournment only apart from mentioning that some error has crept in while filing the monthly return. Therefore, the said letter dated 31.3.2017 cannot be construed as an objection. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to treat the impugned proceedings as a show cause notice and submit their objections within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Summary

Issues:
1. Alleged purchase omission and sales suppression leading to proposed tax and penalty under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.
2. Interpretation of petitioner's representation as an objection and subsequent completion of assessment by the respondent.
3. Direction for the petitioner to treat the proceedings as a show cause notice, submit objections, and undergo reassessment.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a retailer in gold, silver, and diamond jewelry, was alleged to have omitted reporting purchases amounting to ?1,26,42,861 as per a notice from the respondent. The respondent proposed tax and penalty under Section 27(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, based on the gathered details from Annexure 2 of other dealers' records on the departmental website.

2. Upon receiving the notice, the petitioner requested ten days to submit objections due to an error in filing monthly returns by their Chartered Accountant's office. However, the respondent considered this representation as an objection and proceeded to complete the assessment, despite the petitioner's intent for an adjournment and clarification of filing errors. The court noted the misinterpretation and directed the petitioner to treat the proceedings as a show cause notice.

3. In light of the circumstances and allegations, the court disposed of the writ petition with a directive for the petitioner to submit objections within 15 days from receiving the court's order. The respondent was instructed to provide a personal hearing opportunity and redo the assessment in compliance with the law. The judgment did not impose any costs on the petitioner, and the related Writ Miscellaneous Petition was closed as a consequence of the court's decision.