2021 (1) TMI 1051 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Service of notice - Validity of assessment order - recovery of arrears of tax and penalty - also, order of assessment dated 10.09.2015, which was impugned in the writ petition, has been returned with a postal endorsement returned - HELD THAT - Taking note of the fact that the order of assessment was refused to be received, the learned Writ Court rightly held that the service of the notice was complete. Since the appellant had insisted that the business was not functioning, the Writ Court had directed the Revenue to make a visit to the business premises and file a report. Pursuant to such direction, the Assessing Officer, viz., the first respondent had made a visit to the business premises and filed a report through e-mail dated 07.10.2020, annexing photographs, which showed that the entity was functioning and carrying on business in the same address. Therefore, the learned Writ Court held that there is no jurisdiction whatsoever to entertain the writ petition, as the delay between 2015 and the date of passing the order in the writ petition remained unexplained. That apart, the learned Writ Court found that the explanation, given by the appellant with regard to the delay, was factually incorrect. The order of assessment, which was impugned in the writ petition, was sent to two addresses and in respect of one of the addresses, the order of assessment was returned with the endorsement refused , which would mean that the order of assessment has been served in accordance with law and the Department cannot be faulted. That apart, due to the insistence of the appellant contending that the business was not carried on any longer ever since 2015, the learned Writ Court issued direction to the Assessing Officer to inspect the business premises and file a report. This direction was complied with by the Assessing Officer and an inspection was conducted and a report dated 07.10.2020, was filed before the learned Writ Court duly supported by photographs. The report clearly showed that the appellant was carrying on business in the very same premises. Therefore, the stand taken by the appellant that he has nothing to do with the business was found to be a false submission. Even before us, the delay from the year 2015 has not been explained - the Department was not intimated about the alleged closure of business by the appellant's father. The Registration Certificate, granted to the dealer, continued to remain valid and part payment was made by the dealer, which was given credit to in the assessment order. As could be seen from the computation given in the assessment order dated 10.09.2015, as against the total tax demand of ₹ 10,54,509/-, a sum of ₹ 1,53,943/- has been paid and the balance amount payable is ₹ 9,00,566/-. The penalty was calculated at ₹ 15,81,763/- at 150% of the tax due of which, a sum of ₹ 2,30,915/- was paid and the balance payable is ₹ 13,50,848/-. Therefore, the case, as projected by the appellant, having been found to be false by the learned Writ Court, after directing an inspection to be conducted, we find there is no justifiable ground made out by the appellant to interfere with the order passed by the learned Writ Court. The pre-assessment notice was received by the dealer, the order of assessment was communicated to the dealer in the manner known to law. Further, the stand taken by the dealer that they are not carrying on business was found to be false, as could be seen from the inspection report submitted by the Assessing Officer pursuant to the interim direction granted by the learned Writ Court - there are absolutely no ground made out by the appellant to interfere with the order passed in the writ petition. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Challenge to assessment order under Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for the assessment year 2014-15 based on ownership of business, service of notice, liability for tax arrears, jurisdiction of writ petition, and grounds for interference with the order.

Detailed Analysis:

Challenge to Assessment Order:
The appellant challenged the assessment order dated 10.09.2015 under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for the assessment year 2014-15, claiming not to be the proprietor of the business in question, M/s.Rajaram Lamp House, stating that his father was running the business. The appellant argued that he was not served with any notice before the assessment order was passed, alleging a violation of natural justice principles. The appellant contended that since his father had closed down the business in 2015 and cleared the arrears of tax, the assessment order should be quashed.

Ownership of Business and Liability for Tax Arrears:
The Department, in response, argued that the appellant was involved in the business and present during the inspection, disputing the appellant's claim that the business was closed down by his father. The Department asserted that the appellant was carrying on the business along with his father and was jointly and severally liable to pay the tax arrears. The Department claimed to have served demand notices and argued that the appellant's contentions were unsustainable.

Service of Notice and Jurisdiction of Writ Petition:
The Writ Court examined the service of the assessment order and found that it was refused at one address, concluding that the notice was served correctly. The Court directed an inspection of the business premises, which revealed that the appellant was still operating the business, contradicting his claims of closure. The Court dismissed the writ petition due to unexplained delays and false submissions by the appellant.

Grounds for Interference with the Order:
The appellant, in the appeal, reiterated arguments made in the Writ Court, emphasizing that he should not be held liable for the tax arrears. The Court noted that the appellant's claims were found to be false, as evidenced by the inspection report showing business activity at the premises. The Court found no justifiable grounds to interfere with the Writ Court's order, ultimately dismissing the appeal.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the writ appeal, highlighting that the appellant failed to provide sufficient grounds for interference with the order. The Court suggested the appellant clear the tax arrears, but the appellant's counsel did not have instructions on this matter. The Court upheld the findings of the Writ Court regarding the service of notice, business operation, and liability for tax arrears, leading to the dismissal of the appeal without costs.