2024 (6) TMI 1172 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Levy of purchase tax under Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - validity of assessment order - HELD THAT - A reading of the order dated 09.11.2022, rejecting the request of the petitioner for revision of the assessment made on 28.09.2022 reveals that the order has been passed in undue haste. The dispute pertains to the Assessment Years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 and the amount involved are huge. For the Assessment Year 2014-2015, the tax amount is Rs. 91,46,490/- and the amount of tax involved for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 is Rs. 68,98,819/-. The orders dated 09.11.2022, rejecting the Petition filed by the petitioner for revision of the orders dated 28.09.2022, is set aside, subject to the petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed tax before the second respondent in cash by way of D.D. within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The petitioner shall appear for personal hearing before the second respondent before fresh orders are passed. Petition dispsoed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging impugned Assessment Orders for Assessment Years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 under Section 12 of the TNVAT Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the Assessment Orders dated 28.09.2022 for the mentioned Assessment Years, disputing the levy of purchase tax under Section 12 of the TNVAT Act. The petitioner received pre-revision notices since 2020 and had multiple interactions with the authorities, including a personal hearing. Despite the petitioner's requests for more time to file objections and provide evidence, the impugned orders were issued on 28.09.2022. The petitioner argued that the second respondent should have responded to their request for adjournment before passing the orders.

The petitioner also highlighted their success in similar issues for the Assessment Year 2013-2014. They filed an application under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act after the impugned orders were passed, which was rejected without considering their representation. The order rejecting the revision request was deemed to have been passed hastily, considering the substantial amounts involved - Rs. 91,46,490 for 2014-2015 and Rs. 68,98,819 for 2015-2016.

In light of the circumstances, the court decided to set aside the orders rejecting the petitioner's revision request, subject to the petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed tax within 30 days. The petitioner was instructed to appear for a personal hearing and cooperate with the authorities in producing necessary documents. The second respondent was directed to consider the assessment orders for the years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 while passing fresh orders, if relevant. The Writ Petitions were disposed of with these directions, and no costs were awarded.