9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 1398 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxValidity of revised assessment order - Assessment Year 2013-14 - TNVAT Act - discrepancy in Form WW - Section 27 of TNVAT Act - HELD THAT - This Court does not interfere with the impugned order in writ jurisdiction. This Court is convinced that as mentioned supra this is a fit case to relegate the writ petitioner to alternate remedy of appeal to the jurisdictional Appellate Deputy Commissioner inter alia under Section 51 of TNVAT Act. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Revisional assessment under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Validity of the revised Assessment Order dated 11.05.2018 under Section 27 of TNVAT Act. 3. Assessee's failure to respond to the revisional notice and its impact on the assessment. 4. Applicability of legal precedents regarding non-response to notices in tax assessments. 5. Availability and applicability of alternate remedies in tax matters. Analysis: 1. The main issue in this judgment revolves around a revisional assessment under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The writ petitioner, a dealer under the TNVAT Act, was issued a revisional notice due to discrepancies in the returns filed. The respondent proceeded with the revisional assessment and passed a revised Assessment Order dated 11.05.2018 under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act. 2. The validity of the revised Assessment Order dated 11.05.2018 under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act was challenged in the instant writ petition. The petitioner contended that their failure to respond to the revisional notice should not be the sole ground for the revised assessment. The impugned order was passed, taking into account the non-response of the petitioner to the revisional notice. 3. The issue of the assessee's failure to respond to the revisional notice and its impact on the assessment was a crucial point of contention. The petitioner argued that non-response should not be the sole basis for the revised assessment. However, the court noted that the petitioner did send objections after the impugned order was passed, which was considered in the judgment. 4. The judgment extensively analyzed various legal precedents regarding non-response to notices in tax assessments. The court discussed cases such as M/s.Girdhari Lal Nannelal, M/s.JKM Graphics Solutions Private Limited, M/s. Indian Marine Shop, and Usman Brother Agencies Case. Each case presented different scenarios and outcomes based on the responses or objections submitted by the assesses to the notices issued. 5. Lastly, the judgment delved into the availability and applicability of alternate remedies in tax matters. The court emphasized the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking relief through writ jurisdiction, especially in cases involving recovery of public dues or taxes. The writ petitioner was directed to avail the alternate remedy of appeal to the jurisdictional Appellate Deputy Commissioner under Section 51 of the TNVAT Act, and the court declined to interfere with the impugned order in writ jurisdiction. In conclusion, the judgment provided a detailed analysis of the issues related to the revisional assessment under the TNVAT Act, the impact of non-response to notices, the relevance of legal precedents, and the importance of exhausting alternate remedies in tax matters.
|
