2017 (12) TMI 686 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Rejection of claim of exemption on payment to sub-contractors - Held that - this Court noted that on the first issue, namely payment to sub-contractors, the petitioner stated that out of 18 sub-contractors, they had enclosed records in respect of 14 sub-contractors, for which, exemption had been claimed under Rule 8(5)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007 - in the instant cases, in respect of the assessment year 2012-13, it appears that there are 11 sub-contractors and that the petitioner had enclosed records in respect of all the 11 sub-contractors while claiming exemption under Rule 8(5)(c) of the said Rules - matters are remitted back to the first respondent for a fresh consideration along with the assessment for the year 2013-14, which has also been remanded - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging assessment orders under Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act for multiple years.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed writ petitions challenging assessment orders for the years 2011-12 and 2012-13 under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act. A similar order for the year 2013-14 was also challenged previously. The court partly allowed the previous petition, remanding the matter for fresh consideration on two issues. In the current case, the main issue is the rejection of the claim of exemption on payments to sub-contractors. The court decided to remand the assessment proceedings to consider this issue alone, allowing the petitioner to seek remedies for other issues under the Statute.

The court highlighted the importance of providing reasons in assessment orders, citing previous legal precedents. The court noted that the Assessing Officer did not consider the petitioner's objections properly or provide adequate reasons for rejecting the exemption claim on payments to sub-contractors. Lack of reasoning in the assessment order was deemed illegal. Therefore, the court set aside the findings on the exemption claim and purchase omission, remanding the matter for a fresh assessment with proper consideration and a speaking order.

Regarding the issue of payment to sub-contractors, the petitioner had enclosed records for most sub-contractors. In the assessment for 2012-13, records for all 11 sub-contractors were provided, while for 2011-12, details from six sub-contractors were still awaited. Following the previous order, the court partly allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the rejection of the exemption claim on payment to sub-contractors. The matters were remitted back for fresh consideration, along with the assessment for 2013-14. The first respondent was directed to conduct a new assessment, provide a personal hearing to the petitioner, and issue a speaking order in accordance with the law. The petitioner was granted 15 days to file an appeal with the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. No costs were awarded, and related Writ Misc. Petitions were closed.