9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 907 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRevision of assessment order - change of opinion - deemed assessment - reversal of input tax credit mistakenly claimed twice - suppression of sales or not - HELD THAT - The assessment pertains to the year 2013-14 whereas after first revision of assessment, which was completed on 31.03.2017, the second respondent has proposed to revise the assessment once again on 11.07.2018, which is concluded by the impugned assessment order dated 21.12.2018 - As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, mere change of opinion without new or fresh fact de-horse the records, will not entitle the Assessing Officer to revise the assessment order. Further in the instant case, the second respondent has proposed to revise the assessment for the second time on the same scrutiny of returns filed by the petitioner, which was very much available at the time of the original deemed assessment as well as in the revision of assessment order dated 31.03.2017 and the first revision of assessment order dated 31.03.2017. There is total non-application of mind by the second respondent before passing the impugned assessment order - the impugned assessment order set aside - petition allowed.
Issues:
Challenging revision of assessment order under TNVAT Act for the assessment year 2013-14 based on alleged suppression of sales and proposed additional tax and penalty. Analysis: The petitioner, a registered dealer under TNVAT Act, challenged the revision of assessment order passed by the second respondent. The petitioner claimed that the original cum deemed assessment for the assessment year 2013-14 was completed on 31.10.2014. However, following an inspection by Enforcement Wing Officials in 2015, the second respondent revised the assessment in 2017, reversing input tax credit and levying interest. Subsequently, the second respondent issued further revision notices in 2018 alleging discrepancies in sales reporting and proposing additional tax and penalty for suppression of sales. The petitioner denied suppressing any sales and offered to pay the proposed tax amount despite disagreement. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply with documentary evidence, requesting the second respondent to drop the revision proposals and conduct a detailed inquiry as per legal precedents. Despite the petitioner's objections, the second respondent issued an impugned assessment order in December 2018, prompting the petitioner to file a writ petition challenging the order. During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel cited legal judgments emphasizing that revision of assessment requires fresh materials and mere change of opinion is not sufficient grounds for revision. The petitioner argued that no new facts were presented to warrant the revision. In contrast, the Government Advocate contended that there was suppression of sales, citing the petitioner's failure to produce bills and appear during assessment proceedings. The court noted that the second revision of assessment was based on the same scrutiny of returns as the original and previous revisions, indicating a lack of fresh materials. Citing legal precedents, the court held that a mere change of opinion without new facts does not justify revising an assessment order. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned assessment order, finding a total non-application of mind by the second respondent. The writ petition was allowed, and no costs were imposed. In conclusion, the court's decision highlighted the importance of fresh materials and proper application of mind in revising assessment orders. The judgment emphasized the need for legal grounds beyond a mere change of opinion to support revisions, ultimately leading to the quashing of the impugned assessment order.
|
