2025 (4) TMI 426 - HC - VAT / Sales Tax

Challenge to impugned order - petitioner had failed to respond to SCN - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - It is noticed that there is a long gap between the notices that were issued to the petitioner. The second notice dated 14.01.2020 was issued few days before the Country went into lockdown due to outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic. The third notice dated 09.02.2021 was issued when the Country was still under intermittent lockdown. Since the petitioner had failed to respond to the same the respondent has passed the Impugned Order. It appears that the petitioner has not furnished any details to substantiate that the Input Tax Credit availed under Section 19 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax (TNVAT) Act 2006 - the Impugned Order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent to pass a fresh order. Petition disposed off by way of remand.

Summary

The Madras High Court, presided by Justice C. Saravanan, addressed a writ petition concerning an impugned order dated 07.03.2022 for the assessment year 2016-2017. The petitioner failed to respond to notices preceding the order, issued on 08.03.2019, 14.01.2020, and 09.02.2021, the latter two during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns. The petitioner did not provide evidence to substantiate the Input Tax Credit claimed under Section 19 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax (TNVAT) Act, 2006.The court referenced the settled law from the Division Bench in Sahyadri Industries Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2023) 115 GSTR 320 (Mad.), which provided a framework for handling such cases. The judgment concluded with the dismissal of several cases, granting liberty to the appellants/petitioners to file statutory appeals within thirty days, and remitting certain cases back to the Original Authority for fresh orders.In light of this precedent, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the respondent to issue a new order considering the court's ratio in the Sahyadri case. The petitioner is required to cooperate, failing which the respondent may reconfirm the demand. The court directed that a new order be passed within six months, disposing of the writ petition without costs. Connected writ miscellaneous petitions were also closed.