2018 (2) TMI 987 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of assessment order - TNVAT Act - it was alleged that substantial part of the mistake lies with the dealers, as they did not respond to the revision notices respectively dated 01.4.2016 and 06.4.2016 - Held that - On a perusal of the income and expenditure accounts filed by the petitioners under the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the relevant assessment years, it is seen that substantial portion of the work has been done by the petitioners for various local bodies and the petitioners have given the contract numbers and also mentioned about the departmental supply of materials wherever it has been given. It may be true that the petitioners did not produce the copies of the contract agreements. However, the petitioners having transacted business with the Governmental bodies, the respondent can accept any authenticated record given by the concerned authority, for whom, the work has been performed by the petitioners and this would be sufficient to examine the correctness of the transactions reported by the petitioners in their respective turn over. The petitioner directed to pay 15% of the dispute tax for each of the assessment years as computed in the impugned assessment orders, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging assessment orders for years 2006-07 to 2010-11 and 2009-10, 2010-11; Non-compliance with revision notices; Delay in approaching the Court; Request for opportunity to present documents; Acceptance of authenticated records for transactions with Government bodies.

Analysis:
The petitioners contested assessment orders for specific years due to non-compliance with revision notices issued by the respondent. The dealers' failure to respond to notices led to the completion of assessments and subsequent attachment notices for their properties. The petitioners approached the Court after a significant delay, raising concerns about the timeliness of their appeal.

The petitioners, engaged in works contracts with Government bodies, sought an opportunity to present necessary documents to validate their transactions. They referenced a circular allowing Assessing Officers to consider M returns for exemption claims. Despite not providing contract copies, the petitioners demonstrated substantial work done for local bodies, suggesting acceptance of authenticated records by concerned authorities for verification purposes.

The Court directed the petitioners to pay 15% of the disputed tax for each assessment year within 15 days. Compliance would allow them to treat the orders as show cause notices, present objections, and submit attested documents for reassessment. Failure to meet this condition would result in dismissal of the petitions, with property attachments remaining until further orders. The petitioners could rely on the mentioned circular during assessment proceedings, emphasizing the importance of fulfilling the conditional order to benefit from the Court's decision.