2024 (6) TMI 369 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Challenge to recovery notice - Initiation of recovery action against the petitioner after 10 years of passing of such assessment/re-assessment orders - HELD THAT - Though the respondent has not filed any counter affidavit, there are no merits in the present Writ Petition as the petitioner has suffered assessment/re-assessment orders for the Assessment Years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 2009-10 but did not choose to file any appeal before the Appellate Authority in time. This Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the impugned Notice dated 20.07.2022 issued by the respondent for tax arrears.
2. Validity of the assessment/re-assessment orders and the subsequent recovery notice.
3. Failure to receive assessment/re-assessment orders at the new business premises.
4. Compliance with the statutory limitation period for passing re-assessment orders.

Analysis:
The Writ Petition was filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned Notice dated 20.07.2022 issued by the respondent concerning tax arrears. The petitioner had shifted its business premises to a new location in Madurai, which was duly intimated to the Department. However, assessment/re-assessment orders were passed for various periods, including 2003-04 and 2004-05, without being sent to the new address. The petitioner claimed ignorance of these orders and contended that the recovery notice issued after 10 years was unjust. Specifically, for the assessment year 2004-05, the re-assessment order was argued to be beyond the statutory limitation period of 5 years under Section 16 of the TNGST Act, 1959. The petitioner challenged the recovery notice based on these grounds.

The petitioner relied on legal precedents, citing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Ramendra Nath Gosh and the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Parle International Vs. Union of India. These cases were used to support the argument against the validity of the impugned Notice. Despite the petitioner's contentions, the respondent did not file a counter affidavit. The court noted that the petitioner had not appealed the assessment/re-assessment orders for the relevant years before the Appellate Authority within the stipulated time frame. Consequently, the court found no merit in the Writ Petition and held that it should be dismissed. The judgment emphasized that the petitioner had already undergone assessments for the disputed periods but failed to avail the appellate remedy in due time, leading to the dismissal of the Writ Petition without costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition was also closed as a result of the dismissal.