2018 (7) TMI 1265 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of assessment order - TNGST Act - case of petitioner is that Assessment Officer did not have any independent material, except some materials gathered from the Central Excise Department and there are no material to establish that the petitioner had not accounted for the transactions - Held that - The respondent has used the materials received from the Central Excise Department to be the basis for initiation of the proceedings by issuing notice dated 12. 03. 2009. It is not as if the respondent has straightaway proceeded and passed the orders and issued demands based on the material received from the Central Excise Department. Therefore, the materials received from the Central Excise Department has been treated to be a source report based on which action under the Provisions of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act has been initiated - there are no error in the said aspect. As regards that there are no material to establish that the petitioner had not accounted for the transactions, it is found that the entire material revolves on the disputed question of fact. This Court is inclined to issue appropriate direction so that the petitioner can approach the Appellate Authority simultaneously not exposing the petitioner to any further financial liability pending disposal of the appeals - petition is disposed off by directing the petitioner, in each of the above petitions, to file the appeal(s) before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT-IV), Chennai 108 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment orders under Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 based on lack of independent material and erroneous conclusions.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a Registered Dealer, challenged assessment orders dated 29.06.2017 and 19.07.2010 under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Two main contentions were raised. Firstly, it was argued that the Assessment Officer lacked independent material, relying only on data from the Central Excise Department. Secondly, it was contended that the respondent wrongly concluded that the petitioner had not accounted for transactions without sufficient evidence. The Court examined these contentions in detail.

Regarding the first aspect, the Court noted that the respondent initiated proceedings based on materials from the Central Excise Department, treating them as a source report for action under the Sales Tax Act. The Court found no error in this approach, as the respondent did not directly pass orders based on the Central Excise materials but used them as a basis for initiating proceedings.

As for the second contention, the Court observed that the dispute centered on questions of fact. The Additional Government Pleader argued that the petitioner admitted guilt and provided statements. However, the Court held that such disputed factual issues are not suitable for resolution in a writ petition and should be addressed through the appellate process available under the Act.

Acknowledging the prolonged pendency of the writ petitions since 2010, the Court recognized the need for the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy. Despite this, the Court decided to issue directions allowing the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority without incurring further financial liability while the appeals are pending.

Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petitions by directing the petitioner to file appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner within 30 days. The Appellate Authority was instructed to consider the appeals without reference to limitations, decide on merits, and refrain from coercive actions against the petitioner until the appeals are resolved. The Appellate Authority was also directed to independently decide the matters without influence from the current order. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.