9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 85 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxLevy of tax - Password for e-filing of return not provided by Department - Held that - Provisions under Section 23 of the TNVAT Act is not applicable to the facts of this case. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that there is no assessment order in the previous year and the contention that similar issue is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be accepted as admittedly, the case of the petitioner does not fall under Section 23 of the TNVAT Act against this impugned order passed under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act against which remedy lies under Section 54(1) of the TNVAT Act. If the petitioner has any grievance against the order that may be passed, if he is so aggrieved, it is open to the petitioner to approach the competent authority under Section 55 of the TNVAT Act. Since there is dispute about the applicability of the provisions of the Act, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. - Decided against assessee.
Issues:
1. Petitioner seeking Certiorarified Mandamus for quashing proceedings under TNVAT Act and requesting revised orders. 2. Petitioner's claim of not being provided with a password for electronic filing of returns. 3. Dispute over the applicability of Section 19(11) of the TNVAT Act. 4. Interpretation of relevant sections of the TNVAT Act - Sections 54, 55, 84, and 23. Analysis: 1. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking Certiorarified Mandamus to quash proceedings under TNVAT Act and requested revised orders with an opportunity for personal hearing. Reference was made to a previous decision for similar relief. The petitioner contended that the lack of a departmental password hindered electronic return filing, leading to the petition. The petitioner argued against being held liable due to the department's fault. 2. The dispute centered on the applicability of Section 19(11) of the TNVAT Act, with the petitioner claiming that the provision was in question before the Supreme Court. The respondent argued that as this was the first assessment order, Section 19(11) did not apply. The respondent maintained that the petitioner had ample opportunity to present a defense, as directed by the Court in a previous order. 3. The Court examined relevant sections of the TNVAT Act, including Sections 54, 55, 84, and 23. Section 54 detailed revision powers, while Section 55 outlined the Additional Commissioner's authority to examine and revise assessments. Section 84 empowered authorities to rectify errors in orders. Section 23 dealt with identical legal questions in different assessment years. 4. The petitioner's counsel argued against the applicability of Section 23 to the case, emphasizing that the dispute did not involve a previous year's assessment order. The Court held that if the petitioner disagreed with the order, remedies were available under Sections 54(1) and 55 of the TNVAT Act. Due to the dispute over statutory provisions, the Court declined to intervene and dismissed the writ petition, excluding the period from limitation calculations. In conclusion, the Court dismissed the writ petition, noting that the petitioner could seek recourse under the relevant provisions of the TNVAT Act. The judgment highlighted the importance of statutory interpretation and the availability of legal remedies for aggrieved parties.
|
