9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 785 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxValidity of assessment order - respondent has confirmed the demand proposed in the notice as the petitioner failed to participate and respond to the notice - HELD THAT - Though the facts indicate that the petitioner has been negligent in not furnishing the required documents and informations which were called for under Section 22(3) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 on 27.08.2018, 15.10.2018 and on 20.08.2019, the fact remains that when the Show Cause Notice dated 31.07.2020 which preceded the impugned Assessment Order dated 27.01.2021 was issued the Country was under lockdown. Districts in Tamil Nadu were under complete lockdown. The impugned Assessment Order is quashed and the case remitted back to the respondent to pass a speaking order within a period of forty five days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Liberty is given to the petitioner to file all the documents and the informations within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The first date of hearing before the respondent is hereby fixed on 10.01.2022. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
Challenge to Assessment Order due to failure to respond to notice during Covid-19 lockdown, rejection of representation under TNVAT Act, 2006, extension of limitation period by Supreme Court orders, reliance on Circular No.157/13/2021/GST, availability of alternate remedy, delay in approaching the court, negligence in furnishing required documents, quashing of Assessment Order, remitting the case back to the respondent. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the Assessment Order dated 27.01.2021, where the respondent confirmed the demand due to the petitioner's failure to respond to the notice dated 31.07.2020. The petitioner cited the Covid-19 lockdown situation in Erode District during the notice period as the reason for non-participation. The petitioner had previously attempted to furnish records but was unable to do so as the Officer was occupied with assessments for other dealers. The petitioner filed a representation under Section 22(6) (a) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 after the impugned order, which was rejected for not being filed within the specified timeframe. The petitioner argued that the representation should have been considered, referring to the Supreme Court's extension of the limitation period through various orders. Additionally, the petitioner relied on Circular No.157/13/2021/GST implementing the Supreme Court's decision on extending the limitation period. The respondent contended that the petitioner had an alternate remedy available and approached the court belatedly regarding the 27.01.2021 order, suggesting dismissal due to delay. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's negligence in providing required documents previously but noted the lockdown situation during the notice issuance. Consequently, the Court decided to quash the Assessment Order and remit the case back to the respondent for a fresh order within forty-five days. The Court granted the petitioner fifteen days to submit all documents and information, setting the first hearing date on 10.01.2022. The Writ Petition was disposed of without costs, with the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition closed.
|
