9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 144 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxValidity of assessment order - TNVAT Act - it is the case of the Department that the writ petitioner had not filed monthly returns for the Assessment Year 2014-15 as required under TNVAT Act, more particularly under Section 21 of TNVAT Act - impugned order not served on petitioner - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - With regard to Rule 19(1)(d) of TNVAT Rules, there is an endorsement from the Inspector of Department who has served by affixing - However, with regard to two independent witnesses, as provided in Rule 19(1)(d) of aforesaid Rules, the question is left open owing to the order which this Court proposes to pass in this case in the light of M/S. JKM GRAPHICS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER 2017 (3) TMI 536 - MADRAS HIGH COURT . In the light of the specific case of the writ petitioner that the impugned order has not been served on the writ petitioner and as perusal of the impugned order brings to light that JKM Graphics Solutions principle has not been applied, this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to give one more opportunity to the writ petitioner subject to the condition that the writ petitioner pays 15% of the tax assessed i.e., excluding the penalty vide impugned order. Petition allowed by way of remand.
Issues involved:
- Assessment under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - Compliance with procedural requirements for assessment orders Analysis: 1. Assessment under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006: The case involved a writ petition under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act) where the petitioner, a registered dealer, was subjected to a revised assessment for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The Department alleged that the petitioner had not filed monthly returns as required under the TNVAT Act. The assessment was based on details gathered from the website of sellers from whom the petitioner had made purchases. The revised assessment included tax and penalties, which the petitioner contested primarily on two grounds. 2. Compliance with procedural requirements for assessment orders: The petitioner challenged the assessment order on two main grounds. Firstly, it was argued that the assessment did not follow the JKM Graphics Solutions Private Limited principle, a precedent set by the court. The petitioner claimed that the details from the sellers' website were improperly used in the assessment. Secondly, the petitioner contended that the assessment order was not served in accordance with Rule 19(1)(d) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007 (TNVAT Rules). The court examined the files and found that the proposed assessment had been sent to the petitioner via Registered Post with acknowledgment due, and the delivery was confirmed. However, the issue of serving the order in compliance with Rule 19(1)(d) remained unresolved pending the court's decision. 3. The court, after reviewing the facts and considering the petitioner's claim that the assessment order was not served properly and the JKM Graphics Solutions principle was not followed, decided to provide the petitioner with another opportunity. The court directed the petitioner to treat the impugned order as a show-cause notice and file objections within a specified timeframe. A personal hearing was scheduled, and the petitioner was required to pay 15% of the tax assessed before the hearing. Failure to comply would result in the revival of the impugned order. If the petitioner paid the required amount and attended the hearing, the assessment would be redone considering all objections and documents presented by the petitioner, following the JKM Graphics Solutions Private Ltd. principle. The court emphasized that the reassessment must be communicated to the petitioner in accordance with the TNVAT Rules. 4. In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition with the specified directions, emphasizing the importance of compliance with procedural requirements and the principles established by previous judgments. The court did not award any costs in the matter, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
|
