2022 (4) TMI 985 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Seeking to call for records of the assessment order - seeking direction to respondent to proceed with the revision of assessment after the completion of the adjudication under the Central Excise Act, 1994 - HELD THAT - The demand preceded pre-assessment notices, which were issued based on the information gathered from the respondent's counterpart in the Central Excise Department. The fact remains that the Central Excise Department has confirmed the demand proposed in the show cause notice issued under Section 11 A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The records of the Central Excise Department would indicate the quantum of manufacture and therefore they are relevant for arriving at the sales turn over, which has been suppressed by the petitioner. Hence, p rima facie there is no merits for interference at this stage. These writ petitions are dismissed by giving liberty to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the Deputy Appellate Commissioner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Deputy Appellate Commissioner shall however keep the proceedings pending and await for the orders to be passed by the CESTAT, Chennai, in the statuary appeal filed by the petitioner against the orders determining the demand, which would give the correct indication of the turn over, which has escaped assessment - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Certiorarified Mandamus for assessment order revision, Reopening of assessment based on Central Excise Department information, Reliance on Gujarat High Court decision, Interference with impugned orders, Alternate remedy before Deputy Appellate Commissioner, Dismissal of writ petitions with liberty to file statutory appeal.

Certiorarified Mandamus for assessment order revision:
The writ petitions were filed seeking Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records of the assessment order passed by the respondent in CST No. 1069865/2012-13 and TIN No.33825982552/2012-13 dated 12.02.2020, to quash the same and to direct the respondent to proceed with the revision of assessment after the completion of the adjudication under the Central Excise Act, 1994.

Reopening of assessment based on Central Excise Department information:
The respondent redetermined the taxable turnover and tax payable by the petitioner for the assessment year 2012-13 under the TNVAT Act, 2006 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 based on information provided by the Central Excise Department. The assessment of the petitioner was sought to be reopened due to alleged large scale evasion of excise duty without payment of tax, supported by documents and records retrieved from the petitioner's business premises and tax consultant's premises.

Reliance on Gujarat High Court decision:
The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner referenced a decision of the Gujarat High Court regarding the necessity of an independent exercise before making additions for tax collection under the VAT Act based on information from another department. The argument emphasized the importance of an independent opinion rather than solely relying on a show cause notice from another department.

Interference with impugned orders:
The petitioner contended that the impugned orders passed by the respondent, without an independent exercise, were contrary to legal principles, citing the Gujarat High Court decision. The respondent, represented by the Government Advocate, defended the impugned orders as well-reasoned and requiring no interference, highlighting the availability of an alternate remedy before the Deputy Appellate Commissioner.

Alternate remedy before Deputy Appellate Commissioner:
The respondent argued that the petitioner had an alternate remedy before the Deputy Appellate Commissioner against the impugned orders under the TNVAT Act, 2006. It was suggested that the statutory authority under the Central Excise Act, 1944 had concluded regarding the turnover and assessable value, which would apply to the VAT and CST payable by the petitioner.

Dismissal of writ petitions with liberty to file statutory appeal:
After considering the arguments, the judge dismissed the writ petitions but granted the petitioner liberty to file a statutory appeal before the Deputy Appellate Commissioner within 30 days. The judge directed the Deputy Appellate Commissioner to keep the proceedings pending pending the outcome of the appeal filed by the petitioner with the CESTAT, Chennai. The decision to dismiss the writ petitions was made with no costs imposed, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed accordingly.