2022 (2) TMI 405 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of assessment order - It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to have the entire turn over assessed at 0.5% in terms of the provisions and the subsequent notification vide Notification No.II(1)/CTR(a-1)/2007 G.O.Ms.No.2 dated 01.01.2007 wherein, the rate at 1% was reduced to 0.5% for the purpose of Section 3(4) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 - HELD THAT - The petitioner is not entitled to invoke jurisdiction of this Court as the petitioner has failed to give a reply which was elementary on the part of the petitioner to have file a reply notices when there is a proposal for revising the assessment. Considering the fact that the petitioner has shown scant regards of the assessment proceedings under the TNVAT Act, 2006, there are no merits in the present writ petition. Further, this writ petition has been filed for an order which came to be passed in the year 2019, which is exactly two years after the orders was passed. There are no reasons for entertaining this writ petition belatedly. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Assessment Order for Assessment Year 2006-2007 under TNGST Act, 1959 and TNVAT Act, 2006 - Petitioner's entitlement to have turnover assessed at 0.5% - Failure to reply to notices for eight years - Jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the petition belatedly.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the Assessment Order dated 27.12.2019 for the Assessment Year 2006-2007 under the TNGST Act, 1959 and TNVAT Act, 2006. The petitioner contended that they should have the entire turnover assessed at 0.5% based on the relevant provisions and subsequent notifications. However, it was noted that despite receiving multiple notices over the years, the petitioner failed to respond for eight years. The petitioner's sudden rush to the Court after the impugned order was passed was deemed untimely by the Court.

The Court found that the petitioner's failure to reply to the notices, especially in the context of proposed assessment revisions, was a significant lapse on their part. Due to the petitioner's lack of regard for the assessment proceedings under the TNVAT Act, 2006, the Court did not see any merit in the writ petition. The Court emphasized that the petition was filed two years after the impugned order, and there was no justifiable reason for the delay in seeking redress.

Despite dismissing the writ petition, the Court granted the petitioner the liberty to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Commissioner within forty-five days from the date of receipt of the order against the impugned assessment. The Court directed that if such an appeal is filed within the stipulated time, the Appellate Commissioner should entertain and decide the appeal in accordance with the law and on its merits. Additionally, the Court mandated that the petitioner must pre-deposit the required amounts under the respective Acts for the appeal process to proceed.

In conclusion, the Court disposed of the Writ Petition with the aforementioned observations, specifying that no costs were to be incurred. The connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition was also closed accordingly.