9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 50 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRevision of assessments - Section 27 of TNVAT Act - reversal of input tax credit - Section 19(5)(c) of TNVAT Act - HELD THAT - Though, writ petitioner, fairly conceded that more than one revision is permissible, under normal circumstances, revision of the same issue which has already been decided would become a vexed exercise. However, problem presents itself differently for writ petitioner in the instant case - this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case for remitting the matter back to the respondent, as the impugned order does not mention anything about notice and reply in 2017 or the earlier revised assessment order dated 4.8.2017. This Court is of the considered view that this issue can be sorted out if personal hearing is granted to the writ petitioner. Petition allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of provisions under Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act). 2. Validity of revised assessment orders issued by the respondent. 3. Consideration of multiple revised assessments for the same financial year. 4. Lack of mention of previous notices and replies in subsequent assessment orders. 5. Need for personal hearing and opportunity to present objections. Analysis: Issue 1: The primary issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of provisions under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act). The writ petitioner, a registered dealer under the TNVAT Act, was engaged in the business of computer peripherals, accessories, and Closed Circuit Televisions (CCTVs) during the financial year 2014-2015. Issue 2: The validity of the revised assessment orders issued by the respondent is another key point of contention. The respondent passed a revised assessment order on 4.8.2017, followed by another revised assessment order on 30.10.2018, both pertaining to the same financial year. The writ petitioner contested the second revised assessment order, referred to as the 'impugned order,' on the grounds that it revisited issues already concluded in the first revised assessment order. Issue 3: The consideration of multiple revised assessments for the same financial year raises questions about procedural fairness and the necessity of revisiting issues that have already been addressed. While the respondent argued that there is no restriction on the number of revised assessments under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, the writ petitioner highlighted the potential complexities and challenges arising from revising the same issue multiple times. Issue 4: A crucial aspect of the case is the lack of mention of previous notices and replies in subsequent assessment orders. The writ petitioner pointed out discrepancies in how the first and second revised assessment orders were passed, noting that different officers were involved in each revision. This discrepancy raised concerns about procedural irregularities and the need for consistency in decision-making. Issue 5: The need for a personal hearing and an opportunity to present objections emerged as a significant aspect of the case. The Court determined that a personal hearing was essential to address the discrepancies and provide the writ petitioner with a fair chance to present their case. The Court set aside the impugned order solely for the purpose of facilitating a personal hearing, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and due process. In conclusion, the Court directed a personal hearing on a specified date, requiring the writ petitioner to present all relevant documents and issues for consideration. The Court emphasized that the order to set aside the impugned order was not based on merits, and the decision did not express any opinion on the substance of the case. The case was disposed of with directions for a fresh revised assessment order to be issued after the personal hearing, ensuring transparency and procedural fairness in the assessment process.
|
