9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 253 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxDemand of certain sums of money towards revised tax and penalty - deemed assessment under Section 22(2) of TNVAT Act - writ petitioner not having responded to the pre-revision notice under Section 27 of TNVAT Act - HELD THAT - Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly the fact that the quantum is not a huge amount and considering the nature of the business, the following order is passed making it clear that this will not serve as a precedent in days to come. In other words, this is clearly a one off case and the indulgence shown by this Court is solely owing to the peculiar facts and circumstances and therefore, it will not apply to all cases where a dealer receives a pre-revision notice does not respond to the same but comes up with a writ petition later saying that he approached the respondent in person, making this position clear. Impugned demand notice dated 06.12.2021 is set aside solely on the ground that a revisional order crystallising tax liability and penalty has not been made pursuant to pre-revision assessment notice dated 08.11.2019 - petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Validity of the demand notice issued under TNVAT Act for revised tax and penalty for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. Compliance with the pre-revision assessment notice under Section 27 of TNVAT Act. 3. Requirement of a revisional order before issuing a demand notice under Section 42 of TNVAT Act. 4. Dispute regarding the writ petitioner's response to the pre-revision notice. 5. Judicial discretion in the peculiar circumstances of the case. Analysis: 1. The main issue in this case was the challenge to the demand notice dated 06.12.2021 for revised tax and penalty under the TNVAT Act for the assessment year 2015-16. The court noted that the demand notice was issued without a revisional order crystallizing the tax liability and penalty, which is a prerequisite under the law. 2. The court examined the compliance with the pre-revision assessment notice issued under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act. The writ petitioner did not send a written reply or objection but approached the respondent's office in person seeking particulars. The court emphasized the importance of submitting written objections with supporting documents in response to such notices. 3. It was highlighted that before issuing a demand notice under Section 42 of the TNVAT Act, a revisional order should have been made by the respondent to determine the tax liability and penalty. The court clarified that without a revisional order, a demand based solely on a pre-revision notice is not valid. 4. There was a factual dispute regarding the writ petitioner's response to the pre-revision notice. While the petitioner claimed to have approached the office in person, the State Counsel contended that written objections should have been submitted. The court refrained from delving into this controversy but emphasized the importance of sending written objections in such cases. 5. Finally, the court exercised judicial discretion considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. It set aside the demand notice, giving the petitioner time to file written objections to the pre-revision assessment notice. The court directed the respondent to consider the objections and pass a revisional order accordingly, indicating that tax and penalty could be demanded based on the revisional order. In conclusion, the court disposed of the main writ petition in a specific manner tailored to the unique circumstances of the case, emphasizing that its decision should not serve as a precedent for similar cases in the future.
|
