9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 169 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxValidity of Revision/re-assessment Order - reasonable opportunity to show-cause before a revision order is passed under Section 27 of TNVAT Act - HELD THAT - Vide common proviso to sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 27 of TNVAT Act, it is statutorily imperative to give a reasonable opportunity to show-cause before a revision order is passed under Section 27 of TNVAT Act. The respondent has no doubt complied with this requirement by issuing 06.01.2021 notices - In the case on hand, a perusal of the impugned order reveals that the matter inter alia pertains to reconciling difference in sales turn over between profit and loss account and monthly returns. Therefore, this reconciliation can be done if the writ petitioner is permitted to respond to 06.01.2021 notices albeit by putting the writ petitioner on some terms rather than prolonging the matter. Impugned orders being are set aside solely to facilitate the writ petitioner to send in its replies to 06.01.2021 pre revision notices bearing reference TIN/33040842563/2013-14 and TIN/33040842563/2014-15 within a week from today - petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Challenge to orders of revision/re-assessment under the TNVAT Act for the Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15. 2. Failure to respond to pre-assessment notices due to Covid-19 pandemic. 3. Whether the writ petitioner is liable under the TNVAT Act for providing services. 4. Statutory requirement of giving a reasonable opportunity to show cause before passing a revision order under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act. Analysis: 1. The main issue in this judgment involves challenging the orders of revision/re-assessment made under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act for the Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The writ petitioner raised three grounds for challenging the impugned orders, including the expectation that an earlier explanation would suffice, the argument that the TNVAT Act does not apply to the services provided, and the inability to respond to pre-assessment notices due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The Revenue counsel pointed out the necessity of responding to pre-revision notices as per statutory requirements under the TNVAT Act. 2. The Court emphasized the importance of responding to pre-revision notices, stating that the writ petitioner must necessarily respond to such notices issued under the TNVAT Act. The Court highlighted that the submission of a reply in 2016 does not absolve the petitioner from responding to subsequent notices. The Court refrained from expressing opinions that could impact the de novo re-assessment process and emphasized the statutory requirement of giving a reasonable opportunity to show cause before passing a revision order. 3. The argument that the writ petitioner is only providing services and may not fall under the TNVAT Act was considered by the Court. The Revenue counsel argued that this issue pertains to merits and may not be suitable for challenge in writ jurisdiction. The Court accepted this submission and left the consideration of this aspect open for the de novo assessment process. 4. The Court addressed the issue of the writ petitioner failing to respond to the notice to show cause. It reiterated the statutory requirement of providing a reasonable opportunity to show cause before a revision order is passed under the TNVAT Act. The Court directed the writ petitioner to send their response meeting the reconciliation point within a specified timeline. The respondent was instructed to consider the replies, conduct the revision exercise de novo, and conclude the proceedings within a set timeframe. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the Court and the directives provided to the parties involved in the case.
|
