2019 (7) TMI 1399 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Deemed Assessment - Form WW - discrepancies and differences between the returns filed by writ petitioner and the annual returns in Form WW, which has also been filed by writ petitioner - HELD THAT - The submission of learned counsel for writ petitioner that respondent should have given details of mismatch and then called upon the writ petitioner to explain the same pales into insignificance. This is more so, as rightly pointed out by learned State counsel, both the returns have been filed by writ petitioner. Alternative remedy - HELD THAT - It is open to writ petitioner to file a statutory appeal under Section 51 of TNVAT Act to the jurisdictional Appellate Deputy Commissioner. If the writ petitioner chooses to do so, though obvious, it is made clear that conditions of pre-deposit and other conditions for appeal will operate. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Discrepancies in tax returns filed by the petitioner.
2. Challenge to the revisional notices and revised assessment order.
3. Applicability of the alternate remedy under Section 51 of TNVAT Act.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case revolves around the discrepancies found in the tax returns filed by the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The petitioner, a dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, filed monthly returns under Section 21 and annual returns with a certificate from the Auditor in Form WW. The respondent identified differences between the monthly and annual returns, leading to revisional notices and a revised assessment order. The petitioner's objections were considered but deemed insufficient, resulting in the revised assessment order dated 16.05.2018.

2. The petitioner's counsel relied on a previous judgment, JKM Graphics Solutions Private Limited Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, to support their case. However, the State counsel argued that the JKM Graphics case was distinguishable as it involved a mismatch between dealer returns and departmental data, unlike the present case where the discrepancies were within the petitioner's own filings. The court agreed with the State counsel's assessment, emphasizing the unique nature of the discrepancies in the current case.

3. The judgment also addressed the issue of the availability of an alternate remedy for the petitioner under Section 51 of the TNVAT Act. The court highlighted the principle of exhausting alternate remedies, especially in tax-related matters, citing the Satyawati Tandon and K.C. Mathew cases. It was emphasized that while the alternate remedy rule is discretionary, it should be rigorously applied in fiscal laws. The petitioner was advised to pursue an appeal to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, with conditions such as pre-deposit and timely filing being applicable.

In conclusion, the writ petition was dismissed, preserving the petitioner's right to pursue the alternate remedy through an appeal. The court underscored the importance of adhering to statutory procedures in tax matters and highlighted the need for strict compliance with the rule of exhausting alternate remedies before seeking judicial intervention.