2017 (12) TMI 3 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Reversal of input tax credit - TNVAT Act - computation of taxable turnover - liability of interest - Held that - it is the endeavour of the petitioner to state that the respondent committed a serious error in clubbing turnover under the CST Act and to draw the inference that the taxable turnover has exceeded ₹ 200 Crores and therefore, returns filed by them are belated and the petitioner is liable for payment of interest - with regard to Rule 7 of the TNVAT Rules, 2007, which states that every dealer shall file their return for each month in Form I on or before 20th of the succeeding month. Sub-Rule 8 of Rule 7, is sought to be invoked by the respondent by stating that if the taxable turnover in the previous year is ₹ 200 Crores and above, the returns should be filed on or before 14th of the succeeding month. This having not been done, the petitioner is liable for payment of interest. Whether at all the turnover under the CST Act could be clubbed with the turnover of the TNVAT Act, is an important question to be decided. However, the respondent having not considered these issues, this Court is of the view that the matter requires to be remanded to the assessing officer for fresh consideration, on the above factual and legal issues, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing. Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging assessment orders for multiple years under TNVAT Act, reversal of input tax credit, computation of taxable turnover, violation of principles of natural justice, clubbing turnover under CST Act, imposition of penal interest, mismatch issues in assessment.

Analysis:

1. Challenging Assessment Orders: The petitioner, a registered dealer under TNVAT Act, challenged assessment orders for various years due to findings by the Enforcement Wing regarding turnover exceeding a certain limit, non-filing of returns by other dealers, and sales to SEZ unit requiring reversal of input tax credit. The respondent-assessing officer issued a notice proposing to reverse input tax credit, but the petitioner contended that their turnover did not exceed the limit, citing past communications with tax authorities.

2. Reversal of Input Tax Credit: The petitioner defended the input tax credit claimed by providing original invoices and bills from active dealers, requesting the respondent to address the issue with the selling dealers. The petitioner relied on previous court decisions to support their case.

3. Computation of Taxable Turnover: The petitioner argued that the concept of taxable turnover under TNVAT Act should not include turnover liable under CST Act. They emphasized the need for a personal hearing before passing orders, which was not granted by the respondent, leading to a violation of natural justice principles.

4. Clubbing Turnover under CST Act: The respondent argued that the taxable turnover exceeded the limit, justifying the imposition of penal interest for late filing of returns. The mismatch issues in assessment were defended, citing relevant provisions of CST Act and rules.

5. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The Court noted the failure of the respondent to provide a personal hearing despite a specific request, leading to the setting aside of the assessment order on this ground alone.

6. Judgment and Remand: The Court analyzed the definitions of turnover under TNVAT Act and CST Act rules, highlighting the petitioner's argument against clubbing turnover and the respondent's failure to consider crucial issues. The Court allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the orders and remanding the matters for fresh consideration with a personal hearing, emphasizing the importance of analyzing factual and legal issues before re-doing the assessment in compliance with the law.