2019 (9) TMI 14 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of petition - alternative remedy of appeal - non-compliance with the pre-deposit - TNVAT Act - petitioner submits that it would be desirable to give one more opportunity to the writ petitioner - HELD THAT - If the writ petitioner were to avail the alternate remedy of an appeal to the jurisdictional Appellate Deputy Commissioner under Section 51 of TNVAT Act, it would be appropriate to direct the 'jurisdictional Appellate Deputy Commissioner' to entertain the appeal without insisting on 25% predeposit. This view has been taken owing to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and owing to the undisputed position that writ petitioner has paid the entire tax liability. The learned counsel for writ petitioner is unable to give the exact date on which impugned order was served on the writ petitioner - Therefore, appeal if any before the Appellate Authority will be subject to limitation, which is adumbrated in Section 51 of TNVAT Act. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Revised assessment order challenged in writ petition.
2. Failure of writ petitioner to submit objections within specified time.
3. Impugned revised assessment order passed by respondent.
4. Writ petition filed against impugned order.
5. Request for one more opportunity by writ petitioner.
6. Writ petitioner's tax liability paid in full.
7. Direction for appeal to Appellate Deputy Commissioner without predeposit.
8. Uncertainty regarding date of service of impugned order.
9. Exclusion of time spent in writ petition from limitation period for appeal.
10. Appellate Authority not made a respondent in the case.

Analysis:
1. The case involves a writ petition challenging a revised assessment order passed against the writ petitioner under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The petitioner failed to submit objections within the specified time frame despite a court order directing the respondent to treat the assessment order as a show cause notice. Consequently, the respondent passed the impugned revised assessment order under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act.

2. The writ petitioner, citing reasons of staff turnover, requested one more opportunity to respond to the assessment. However, the Revenue Counsel argued against granting further chances, highlighting the petitioner's alleged lethargy and the potential for abuse if such leniency were allowed for all dealers. The court acknowledged the petitioner's predicament but agreed with the Revenue Counsel's stance.

3. Despite the above, a window of relief was identified for the writ petitioner as the impugned order revealed that the petitioner had paid the entire tax liability. This prompted the court to direct the Appellate Deputy Commissioner to entertain the appeal without insisting on the usual 25% predeposit, considering the unique circumstances of the case.

4. The exact date of service of the impugned order on the writ petitioner remained uncertain, potentially affecting the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority. To address this, the court excluded the period spent in the writ petition from the limitation calculation, drawing inspiration from the principles in the Limitation Act.

5. Notably, the Appellate Authority, the jurisdictional Appellate Deputy Commissioner, was not included as a respondent in the case. The Revenue Counsel was directed to inform the Appellate Authority of the court's order through a suitable letter.

6. The court emphasized that if the writ petitioner chose to file a statutory appeal within the specified limitations, the appeal would be heard on its merits and in accordance with the law. The writ petition was disposed of with the mentioned observations, and no costs were awarded.