9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 1660 - HC - VAT / Sales TaxChallenge to Assessment under TNVAT Act 2006 - Best judgment assessment - Penalty under Section 22(5) of TNVAT Act 2006 - HELD THAT - When the order was challenged, in TVL. GURUSAMY AGENCIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR VERSUS DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, PANRUTI (TOWN) 2017 (6) TMI 1404 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate forum, writ Court vide order dated 07.06.2017, disposed of the writ petition, granting three weeks time, from the date of passing of the order in the writ petition. The Writ appeal is dismissed.
Issues: Assessment under TNVAT Act 2006, Best judgment assessment, Penalty under Section 22(5) of TNVAT Act 2006, Filing of returns, Statutory appeal
The judgment by the Madras High Court involved the assessment of a dealer under the TNVAT Act 2006 based on best judgment due to willful suppression of purchase turnover and sales turnover to evade tax payment. The assessment order detailed the calculations leading to a proposed tax due of Rs. 2,67,522-00 on a total turnover of Rs. 18,44,981-00 at 14.5%. Additionally, a penalty of Rs. 4,01,283-00 was imposed under Section 22(5) of the TNVAT Act 2006 for willful sales suppression. The dealers were given an opportunity for a personal hearing but failed to provide any evidence to challenge the assessment. The court upheld the assessment and penalty, emphasizing the importance of timely and accurate filing of returns as per TNVAT rules. The judgment highlighted that the dealers' late filing of returns in Form K, after knowing the purchase details, was not acceptable. The court issued demand notices for the tax due and penalty amount. In response to a challenge in W.P. No. 4496 of 2017, the writ Court allowed the petitioner to appeal the decision within three weeks. The appellant's counsel contested the writ Court's decision, but the court extended the time for filing a statutory appeal by three weeks despite dismissing the appeal. Ultimately, the writ appeal was dismissed without costs.
|
