9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 374 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxReopening of assessment - burden of proof for reopening of assessment not discharged - assessment based on the details in website is a valid ground or not - HELD THAT - A learned Single Judge of this court in M/S. JKM GRAPHICS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER 2017 (3) TMI 536 - MADRAS HIGH COURT has taken note of provisions of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act and the rules made thereunder and had exhorted the Commercial Tax Department to follow the aforesaid mechanism to deal with the issue relating to mismatch between the turnover declared in the returns by an assessee and the turnover noticed in the website of the Commercial Tax Department. It was submitted that though, a Review Petition was filed before the learned Single Judge to review the aforesaid decision, a centralised mechanism has been devised by the Government, but it is yet to be implemented. Copy of the centralised mechanism devised by the Commercial Tax Department is not available. It also appears that the Revision Petition has been recently dismissed - Petition dismissed.
Issues:
1. Re-determination of taxable turnover based on information from the Commercial Tax Department's website. 2. Validity of reopening assessment under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. 3. Admission of omissions by the petitioner and the partner during the personal hearing. 4. Challenge to the impugned assessment order. 5. Applicability of the centralised mechanism devised by the Commercial Tax Department. 6. Dismissal of the Writ Petition and allowance to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority. Issue 1: Re-determination of taxable turnover: The petitioner's taxable turnover was proposed to be re-determined based on information from the Commercial Tax Department's website, leading to a notice dated 09.08.2016 under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The first revision order dated 29.09.2016 demanded a sum of ?5,88,771/- as differential tax and an equal amount of penalty. The petitioner challenged this order, which was set aside, remanding the matter for fresh consideration following specific procedures to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Issue 2: Validity of reopening assessment: A fresh revision notice dated 26.02.2018 was issued, culminating in the impugned order dated 30.06.2018, confirming a tax of ?8,40,338/- and a penalty. The petitioner contested this order on the grounds that the assessment was reopened without discharging the burden of proof under Section 27. The respondent argued that the assessment was revised based on admissions made by the petitioner's partner during a personal hearing. Issue 3: Admission of omissions: The petitioner admitted omissions due to the relocation of their factory and loss of documents during transit. The partner undertook to pay the differential tax, asserting the mistake was not willful. The impugned order was passed based on the partner's admissions regarding the omission. Issue 4: Challenge to the impugned assessment order: The petitioner challenged the impugned order, claiming it was passed without discharging the burden of proof for reopening the assessment. The respondent contended that the order was valid, and various submissions were made on the determination of the tax amount. Issue 5: Applicability of centralised mechanism: The court noted a previous decision urging the Commercial Tax Department to follow a centralised mechanism to address discrepancies in turnover declarations. Although a centralised mechanism was devised but not yet implemented, the court considered the admission of liability by the petitioner's partner during the personal hearing as a basis for upholding the impugned order. Issue 6: Dismissal of the Writ Petition and allowance to file a statutory appeal: The Writ Petition was dismissed due to lack of merits, but the petitioner was allowed to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority within thirty days. The Appellate Authority was directed to consider the centralised mechanism's applicability to the case and dispose of the appeal within ninety days. In conclusion, the judgment addressed various issues related to the re-determination of taxable turnover, validity of reopening assessment, admissions of omissions, challenge to the assessment order, applicability of the centralised mechanism, and the option to file a statutory appeal.
|
