9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (9) TMI 873 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRequest to direct the respondent to pass order afresh in respect of the assessment years 2007-08 to 2010-11 under the TNVAT Act 2006 - Assessee seeks to accept the declaration in Form-C submitted after 25.03.2014 and also for acceptance of Form-I in respect of sales made to SEZ - Held that - Petitioner has submitted the declarations in Form-C and Form-I in respect of sales made to SEZ belatedly, if that be taken into consideration, the liability to pay tax will be very much reduced. In this regard, the petitioner has made a representation to the respondent dated 18.04.2014. In that context, the petitioner s contention can be accepted and I am inclined to set aside the impugned orders - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Revision of orders under CST Act and TNVAT Act. 2. Consideration of representations for accepting Form-C and Form-I. 3. Delay in considering representations by the respondent. 4. Liability to pay tax based on belated submission of declarations. 5. Setting aside impugned orders and remitting the matters back to the respondent for fresh consideration. Analysis: 1. The petitioner, a manufacturer of Anti-Corrosive Paints and Fire Proofing products, filed Writ Petitions seeking to quash the respondent's order in CST Nos.841893/2008-09 to 2010-11 and to direct a fresh order under the TNVAT Act 2006 for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2010-11. The petitioner argued that the order under CST Act was revised but not under the TNVAT Act, leading to the filing of the petitions (W.P.Nos. 17668 to 17670 of 2014 and W.P.No. 17610 of 2014). 2. The petitioner contended that despite making representations on 18.04.2014 to accept belatedly submitted declarations in Form-C and Form-I for sales made to SEZ, the respondent did not consider them. The delay in considering these representations formed the basis of the petitioner's grievance and the subsequent filing of the Writ Petitions. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the delay in revising the order under the TNVAT Act, 2006, after the revision under the CST Act, warranted the quashing of the proceedings dated 28.03.2014, 25.03.2014, and 25.03.2014. The petitioner sought a fresh assessment based on the representations made in April 2014. 4. The Additional Government Pleader representing the respondent contended that the petitioner's failure to produce declarations in Form-C and Form-I on time justified the respondent's actions in passing the impugned orders. The respondent suggested that any grievances should be addressed to the appropriate authority for resolution. 5. Upon hearing both sides, the Court acknowledged the belated submission of declarations by the petitioner and recognized that considering these declarations would significantly reduce the tax liability. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders in W.P.Nos. 17668 to 17670 of 2014 and directed the respondent to reevaluate the matters, taking into account the petitioner's representations. The Court instructed the respondent to expedite the process and make decisions within two weeks of receiving the order copy, thereby disposing of W.P.No. 17610 of 2014 and closing the connected Miscellaneous Petitions without costs.
|
