9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 1396 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxValidity of revised assessment order - levy of penalty - Deemed assessment - TNVAT Act - HELD THAT - First respondent cannot be found fault with for passing the impugned order, as writ petitioner dealer has sent a reply saying that writ petitioner has no objections to make qua the proposal and the writ petitioner will approach the Court if revised assessment order is passed. One more reason as to why first respondent cannot be found fault with is, personal hearing granted to writ petitioner (though a date was clearly specified) has also not been availed of by writ petitioner - This Court is of the considered view that this writ petition is bereft of merits, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It is open to writ petitioner to file a statutory appeal against the impugned order under Section 51 of TNVAT Act, subject to limitation and subject to pre-deposit condition thereunder if the writ petitioner chooses to do so - Petition dismissed.
Issues:
Violation of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - Deemed assessment - Discrepancies in business premises - Compounding notice - Revisional notice - Revised assessment order - Opportunity of personal hearing - Impugned order under Section 27 of TNVAT Act - Valid objections - Merits of the matter - Statutory appeal under Section 51 of TNVAT Act. Analysis: The judgment by the Madras High Court dealt with a case involving a writ petition under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act). The petitioner, a dealer in cement, iron, and steel, was subject to an inspection by Enforcement Wing Officers, which revealed discrepancies for the Assessment Year 2016-17. Subsequently, a Compounding Notice was issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, and a compounding fee was fixed. However, a revisional notice was later issued by the first respondent, outlining discrepancies and proposing a revised assessment and penalty, providing an opportunity for objections and a personal hearing. The petitioner's response to the revisional notice indicated no objections to the proposal but stated intent to seek remedy through a court if a revised assessment order was passed. The first respondent proceeded with the revised assessment based on available records, as the petitioner did not avail the opportunity of personal hearing, and the response lacked valid objections. The impugned order under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act confirmed the proposal due to the petitioner's stance. The Court noted that the first respondent acted appropriately based on the petitioner's response and the failure to avail the personal hearing. The judgment emphasized that the submissions challenging the impugned order focused on merits and facts, lacking grounds for interference. The Court concluded that the writ petition lacked merit and dismissed it, while highlighting the petitioner's option to file a statutory appeal under Section 51 of the TNVAT Act, subject to limitations and pre-deposit conditions. The appellate authority was deemed open to addressing the matter on its merits if an appeal was pursued, preserving the petitioner's rights in this regard. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed without costs, allowing for the possibility of a statutory appeal under the specified provisions of the TNVAT Act.
|
