2019 (7) TMI 1293 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of reassessment order - reversal of Input tax credit - Section 27 of TNVAT Act - HELD THAT - There is no disputation or disagreement before this Court in the hearing today that the writ petitioner, who was issued with revisional notices prior to the impugned revised assessment orders did not send any objections - As the writ petitioner did not send objections in spite of being given an opportunity, it may be unfair to examine the impugned revised assessment orders on various submissions, which are now being made in the instant writ petitions as these submissions are more in the nature of reply to the revisional notice. Impugned orders are not disturbed or interfered with. However, it is made clear that impugned orders are not sustained on merits.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenging revised assessment orders under the TNVAT Act.
2. Failure to respond to revisional notices.
3. Seeking exclusion of time spent on writ petitions for filing statutory appeals.
4. Directions for filing statutory appeals and disposal by the Appellate Authority.

Analysis:
1. The four writ petitions before the Madras High Court involved challenging revised assessment orders made under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The issues primarily revolved around the reversal of Input Tax Credit and melting loss concerning new gold ornaments and silver items. The petitions related to different assessment years but arose from a common factual background.

2. It was noted that the respondent had sent revisional notices to the writ petitioner before issuing the impugned revised assessment orders. However, the writ petitioner did not respond with any objections, as explicitly stated in the assessment orders. This lack of objection from the petitioner was acknowledged by the Court during the hearing.

3. In light of the petitioner's failure to submit objections despite the opportunity provided, the Court deemed it unfair to entertain the submissions made in the writ petitions as they appeared more as responses to the revisional notice. Consequently, the petitioner expressed intent to pursue the statutory appeal route under Section 51 of the TNVAT Act through the Jurisdictional Appellate Authority.

4. The Court's final order maintained that while the impugned orders were not interfered with, they were not upheld on merits either. The petitioner was directed to file statutory appeals within the prescribed time limits, with the period spent on pursuing the writ petitions excluded from the calculation of the limitation period. The Appellate Authority was tasked with expeditiously disposing of the statutory appeals, retaining the authority to examine relevant materials for a decision on merits.

In conclusion, the writ petitions were disposed of with the outlined directions, emphasizing the need for the petitioner to follow the statutory appeal process while leaving all questions on merits open for consideration by the Appellate Authority.