9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 1313 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxValidity of assessment order - TNVAT Act - Audit Report in Form WW - Section 63-A of TNVAT Act, 2006 - financial year 2016-2017 - HELD THAT - The entire issue covered in the case of TVL. NITHRA FURNITURE P. LTD., VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) , CHENNAI 2015 (8) TMI 1467 - MADRAS HIGH COURT where it was held that Once the original defect, if at all it was a defect, was cured by the assessee, by filing Form WW, the respondent cannot simply throw the form out on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of limitation. This is especially so when best of judgment assessment orders have been passed by him. The impugned order is set aside only to facilitate assessment to be done afresh in the light of Audit Report in Form WW, which has since been filed along with penalty - Now that the Audit Report in Form WW has been filed with the respondent, the respondent shall make the assessment afresh, taking into account the Audit Report in Form WW and pass assessment order afresh, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 regarding Audit Report in Form WW for the financial year 2016-2017. 2. Application of legal principles established in previous judgments by Hon'ble Division Bench and Single Judge of the High Court. 3. Validity of penalty for belated submission of Audit Report in Form WW. 4. Setting aside of impugned orders and directions for fresh assessment by the respondent. Analysis: 1. The writ petition under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 pertains to the Audit Report in Form WW for the financial year 2016-2017. The scope of the petition is limited to this specific issue. 2. The judgment references legal principles established in previous cases by the Hon'ble Division Bench and a Single Judge of the High Court. These principles provide the framework for the current decision and guide the interpretation of the law in the present case. 3. The petitioner was directed to pay a penalty for the belated submission of the Audit Report in Form WW. The penalty was paid on 14.5.2019, resolving this aspect of the dispute. 4. The impugned order dated 6.6.2018 was set aside to facilitate a fresh assessment based on the Audit Report in Form WW, which was subsequently filed along with the penalty payment. The High Court clarified that this decision does not express any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving all questions open for future consideration. 5. Following the submission of the Audit Report in Form WW, the respondent was instructed to conduct a fresh assessment within four weeks, considering the newly provided information. Additionally, the consequential order freezing/attaching the petitioner's bank account was also set aside in light of the fresh assessment process. 6. The writ petition was disposed of with the aforementioned directions, and no costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed as a consequence of the main judgment.
|
