2021 (12) TMI 151 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Revision of assessment under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 - mistake in the return by itself - inter-state sales - petitioner has made a typographical mistake by adding the VAT turnover for the respective months - HELD THAT - The turn over declared in the TNVAT returns is reflected as the turn over in the CST returns. In the TNVAT returns, the petitioner has also undertaken to pay the tax as the assessment is the self-assessment under the TNVAT Act. In the CST return, the petitioner has not assessed any tax as the petitioner was not liable to pay tax as there was no transactions of Inter-state Sales. Since the petitioner has also filed an application under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, nothing precluded the Officer from exercising the jurisdiction under Section 22(6a) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 to see whether any tax remained unpaid. There are no records to substantiate thus the petitioner had effected Inter-state Sales. The case is remitted back to the respondent to pass appropriate orders by examining whether the petitioner is indeed entitled for a revision under Section 22 (6a) of the TNVAT Act, 2006. If there was no Inter-state Sales, the respondent shall drop the proceeding notwithstanding delay - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment Order under CST Act, 1956 for the Assessment Year 2017-2018.
2. Inclusion of turnover under TNVAT Act, 2006 in the CST Act, 1956 returns.
3. Petitioner's request for revision under Section 84 of TNVAT Act, 2006.
4. Impugned Assessment Order and the respondent's stance on revision.
5. Alternate remedies available to the petitioner.
6. Discrepancies in the assessment and the petitioner's contentions.
7. Examination of turnovers and self-assessment under TNVAT and CST Acts.
8. Jurisdiction under Section 22(6a) of TNVAT Act, 2006.
9. Quashing of the Impugned Assessment Order and remittance for reevaluation.

Analysis:
The petitioner had an Assessment Order under the CST Act, 1956 for the year 2017-2018 due to mistakenly including TNVAT Act, 2006 turnover in CST returns. The petitioner sought revision under Section 84 of TNVAT Act, 2006, which was initially dismissed but led to the impugned Assessment Order. The respondent contended that the order couldn't be revised under Section 84. The petitioner argued that the mistake in returns should not confirm the demand, citing a typographical error. The respondent suggested alternate remedies before the Appellate Commissioner and under Section 22(6a) of TNVAT Act, 2006.

Upon review, the court found discrepancies in the turnovers declared under TNVAT and CST Acts, noting self-assessment under TNVAT and no tax liability under CST due to no Inter-state Sales. The court observed that the Officer could have used Section 22(6a) to verify unpaid tax. Consequently, the Impugned Assessment Order was quashed, and the case remitted for reevaluation under Section 22(6a) to determine if the petitioner is entitled to revision. The respondent was directed to drop proceedings if no Inter-state Sales were found, with a 30-day timeline for the reevaluation, ensuring the petitioner's opportunity to be heard.

In conclusion, the Writ Petition was allowed, no costs were imposed, and the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition was closed, providing clarity on the assessment and revision process under the respective tax acts.