2023 (10) TMI 720 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Proper jurisdiction to decide the matter - Authority for Clarification of an Advance Ruling - non-application of mind - Violation of principles of natural justice - opportunity of personal hearing not provided before passing the impugned order. It is the case of the petitioner that there is a procedural infraction inasmuch as the petitioner submitted additional submission on 09.06.2023 and which was also received by the respondent on 12.06.2023. HELD THAT - The petitioner has invited adverse orders from the aforesaid authority namely the Authority for Clarification and Advance Ruling earlier on 02.09.2015 and thereafter on 26.04.2019. Though the latter order of this Court in M/S. RENATUS PROCON PRIVATE LTD. VERSUS THE AUTHORITY FOR CLARIFICATION AND ADVANCE RULING, EZHILAGAM, CHEPAUK, CHENNAI, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) 2022 (9) TMI 998 - MADRAS HIGH COURT has been diluted by the previous order of this Court dated 29.09.2015 based on the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and though the above decision was given in favour of the petitioner, the fact remains that the Assessing Officer has applied mind while passing an order determining the classification which was earlier confirmed by the Authority for Clarification and Advance Ruling by order dated 02.09.2015 and thereafter, once again, after the order of the Authority for Clarification and Advance Ruling dated 26.04.2019 was set aside by this Court vide its Order in M/S. RENATUS PROCON PRIVATE LTD. VERSUS THE AUTHORITY FOR CLARIFICATION AND ADVANCE RULING, EZHILAGAM, CHEPAUK, CHENNAI, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) 2022 (9) TMI 998 - MADRAS HIGH COURT . The issues relating to classification are best left to be decided by the authorities under the hierarchy appellate body of the TNVAT Act, 2006 and in case, the petitioner is so aggrieved, the petitioner has to approach only the Appellate Commissioner and thereafter the Tribunal which is the ultimate fact finding authority. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case include challenges to the decisions of the Advance Ruling Authority, classification of products under the TNVAT Act, procedural irregularities in assessment orders, and the binding nature of orders passed by the Authority for Clarification and Advance Ruling.

Challenge to Advance Ruling Authority's Decision:
The petitioner had previously challenged a decision of the Advance Ruling Authority, which was subsequently quashed by the Court due to lack of personal hearing and non-compliance with statutory provisions. The matter was remitted back to the Authority for fresh orders.

Transition to GST Enactments:
Following the subsumption of the TNVAT Act into GST enactments, the petitioner challenged a fresh order passed by the Authority for Clarification and Advance Ruling. The petitioner acknowledged that the Authority no longer existed under the GST enactments, leading to the dismissal of the application.

Procedural Irregularities in Assessment Orders:
The petitioner raised concerns regarding procedural irregularities in the assessment process, alleging that the Assessing Officer predated the order despite receiving additional submissions from the petitioner. The petitioner also cited relevant legal provisions to support their case.

Classification Dispute and Authority's Decision:
The dispute centered around the classification of the petitioner's products under the TNVAT Act, with the petitioner arguing for a specific tax rate based on the nature of their manufacturing activities. The respondent, however, emphasized the binding nature of the Authority's orders and the Assessing Officer's independent conclusion on the matter.

Court's Decision and Appellate Options:
The Court noted the previous orders and the Assessing Officer's decision on classification, concluding that such issues should be addressed by the appellate bodies under the TNVAT Act. The Court dismissed the writ petition but granted the petitioner the liberty to file a Statutory Appeal before the Appellate Commissioner within a specified timeframe, with the assurance of a fair review of the case.