2015 (12) TMI 467 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of impugned order - validity of section 19(20) of the Act is yet to attain finality and the matter is now pending before the honourable Supreme Court - Held that - in cases where the assessee claims that any question of law arising in his case for an assessment year which is pending before the assessing authority is identical with the question of law arising in his case for another assessment year which is pending before the High Court or the Supreme Court, the assessee may furnish declaration to the assessing authority under section 23(1) - Admittedly, there is no case of the assessee pending for assessment year before the assessing authority in which an identical question of law is pending before the Supreme Court. In the light of the fact, there is no such issue pending in respect of the petitioner s case for any earlier assessment year before the honourable Supreme Court, the question of invoking the power under section 23, does not arise. Therefore, the submission of the petitioner in this regard stands rejected. Having held so, the only other question which remains is whether the impugned order of assessment will be held to be bad in law for invoking section 19(20) of the Act. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to reassessment orders under Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 based on the validity of section 19(20) pending before the Supreme Court. Interpretation of section 23 of the Act regarding filing a declaration for identical questions of law pending before High Court or Supreme Court.

Analysis:
The petitioners, registered dealers under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, challenged reassessment orders by the respondent for different assessment years, citing the pending issue of the validity of section 19(20) before the Supreme Court. The senior counsel for the petitioner argued for the right to file a declaration under section 23 of the Act if the question of law in their case is identical to a case pending before the High Court or Supreme Court. However, the Additional Government Pleader contended that section 23 did not apply as no previous case of the petitioner was pending before the courts.

Upon examining section 23(1) of the Act, it was noted that the provision allows for filing a declaration if an identical question of law is pending for different assessment years before the assessing authority and the High Court or Supreme Court. Since there was no such situation with the petitioner's case pending before the Supreme Court, the power under section 23 could not be invoked. The court also referenced a previous judgment upholding the validity of section 19(20) of the Act.

Ultimately, the court rejected the petitioner's submission regarding section 23, as there was no identical question of law pending before the Supreme Court for any earlier assessment year. Consequently, the prayer in the writ petitions was denied, leading to the dismissal of the petitions without costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed as a result of the judgment.