2024 (11) TMI 543 - HC - VAT / Sales Tax

Validity of the notices issued under Sections 84 and 27(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act, 2006) - time limitation for revising assessment orders - HELD THAT - As far as the limitation is concerned, it is sufficient if a notice is issued for revising the assessment in time. This Court earlier had an occasion to deal with the case of TVL. VICTUS DYEINGS VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) 2019 (8) TMI 823 - MADRAS HIGH COURT in the context of Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, 2006., wherein the dispute related to the Assessment Years 2007-08 to 2010-2011 respectively - As per proviso to Section 22(2) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 , the assessment years were deemed to have been completed on 30.06.2012. Thus, any proceedings to revise the assessment which is deemed to have been completed under proviso to Section 22(2) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 had to be completed within six years for the deemed assessment under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, 2006. It is a well settled principle of law that mere mentioning of a wrong provision or non-mentioning of a provision would not invalidate an order, if the court and/or statutory authority had the requisite jurisdiction therefor. The notices that were issued on 23.07.2014 were also notices issued under Section 27(1)(a) of the TN VAT, Act, 2006. There was only a typographical error in the notices and they were supposed to be issued under Section 27(1)(a) of the TN VAT Act, 2006. The tenor of the notice also make it clear that they were issued for the purpose of revision of Assessment, though Section 84 of the TN VAT Act, 2006 can be invoked only to correct errors apparent face on record - The grounds raised by the petitioner on 12.09.2014 was rejected by the Assessing Officer stating that the powers under Section 84 of the Act could not be invoked for these Assessment Years namely 2010-11 and 2012-13 which culminated in orders dated 31.07.2014. Having concluded that the notices issued in the year 2014 dated 23.07.2014 were indeed notices under Section 27(1)(a) of the TN VAT Act, it has to be held that the the Assessments completed by the second respondent dated 04.01.2021 , 31.12.2020 and on 07.01.2021 were within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 27(1)(a) of the TN VAT Act, 2006. These writ petitions stand dismissed.

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of the notices issued under Sections 84 and 27(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TN VAT Act, 2006).
2. Limitation period for revising assessment orders under the TN VAT Act, 2006.
3. Jurisdiction and validity of assessment orders based on incorrect statutory references.
4. Availability of alternate remedies and their impact on the writ petitions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Notices Issued Under Sections 84 and 27(1)(a):

The petitioner challenged the validity of the notices issued under Sections 84 and 27(1)(a) of the TN VAT Act, 2006, arguing that they were issued long after the expiry of the limitation period prescribed under Section 27(1)(a). The petitioner contended that the notices were without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Act. The court examined the notices and found that although they were initially issued under Section 84, they were intended to be under Section 27(1)(a) as they proposed to levy penalties under Section 27(3). The court held that mere typographical errors in the statutory reference do not invalidate the notices as long as the authority had jurisdiction and the notices were issued for the purpose of revising assessments.

2. Limitation Period for Revising Assessment Orders:

The court addressed the issue of whether the assessment proceedings were time-barred. It referred to the proviso to Section 22(2) of the TN VAT Act, 2006, which deems assessment years to be completed by a certain date, and Section 27, which prescribes a six-year limitation for revising deemed assessments. The court concluded that the notices issued on 23.07.2014 were within the limitation period as they were intended for the revision of assessments and were followed by revised assessment orders dated 04.01.2021, 31.12.2020, and 07.01.2021. The court relied on precedents from the Supreme Court, which established that if proceedings are initiated within the prescribed time, subsequent finalization beyond the period does not render them time-barred.

3. Jurisdiction and Validity of Assessment Orders Based on Incorrect Statutory References:

The petitioner argued that the assessment orders were invalid due to incorrect statutory references in the notices. The court reiterated the principle that the incorrect citation of statutory provisions does not invalidate an order if the authority had the requisite jurisdiction. The court cited Supreme Court decisions, such as Ram Sunder Ram v. Union of India and N. Mani v. Sangeetha Theatres, to support this position. Consequently, the court held that the assessment orders were valid despite the incorrect reference to Section 84, as the notices were substantively under Section 27(1)(a).

4. Availability of Alternate Remedies:

The respondents argued that the petitioner had an alternate remedy before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, which should preclude the writ petitions. The court considered this argument but focused on the substantive issues of limitation and jurisdiction, ultimately dismissing the writ petitions. The court emphasized that the availability of alternate remedies does not automatically bar the exercise of writ jurisdiction, particularly when fundamental questions of law are involved.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the validity of the revised assessment orders. It concluded that the notices issued in 2014 were substantively under Section 27(1)(a) and within the limitation period. The court affirmed that incorrect statutory references do not invalidate proceedings if jurisdiction exists, and the substantive purpose of the notices was clear. Consequently, the assessment orders were deemed valid, and the petitions were dismissed with no costs.

← Previous