2020 (1) TMI 634 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of petition - appropriate forum - pure questions of fact - Levy of penalty under Section 27 of TNVAT Act - purchase omissions - input tax credit on interstate sales without C forms - HELD THAT - I do not propose to delve into these explanations, being pure questions of fact. A perusal of the show cause notice, reply and order of assessment make it apparent that the discrepancies noted by the authorities as well as the objections raised refer to several factual matters and it is only upon an appreciation of the same can the disputes be resolved - while the petitioner can certainly challenge the order as being incorrect in its appreciation of transactions in question, there is no perversity on facts or errors in law that is made out before me. This is a matter where the petitioner should avail the statutory appellate remedy before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Since the petitioner has enjoyed an interim stay for some time, in the interests of justice, the petitioner is granted liberty to file an appeal before the 1st appellate authority, if it so desires and such appeal, if presented with pre-deposit and in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from today - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenging assessment orders for periods 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 based on discrepancies in import transactions and tax credit reversals.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to two assessment orders dated 06.07.2015 for the periods 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, challenged by the petitioner following a surprise inspection on 16.06.2014. The show cause notice dated 10.03.2015 alleged purchase omissions and proposed reversal of input tax credit on interstate sales without C forms, along with penalties under Section 27 of the Act. The petitioner responded by denying the allegations, stating that transactions were duly reported and offered to tax. The petitioner argued that certain imported goods were delayed and detained in the CFS, leading to discrepancies in valuation. However, the court declined to delve into these factual matters, emphasizing that discrepancies in valuation and taxability fall outside its purview under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The court noted that while the petitioner could challenge the assessment order's correctness, there was no evident perversity on facts or legal errors. Consequently, the court suggested the petitioner avail the statutory appellate remedy before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Granting liberty to file an appeal within two weeks, the court emphasized the need for expedited resolution due to the assessments' timelines. Ultimately, both writ petitions were disposed of, allowing the petitioner to pursue further recourse through the appellate process.