2015 (12) TMI 715 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Challenge to assessment order - Delay in filing of returns - since the annual returns were filed after a lapse of 16 months and the petitioner company having not furnished the sales details and purchase code etc. under the best of judgment - Held that - Due to the non-availability of required documents during the relevant period of time, the petitioner was not able to produce those documents to the respondent. Hence, in the absence of the relevant materials, so as to pass an order of assessment on works contract, the impugned order came to be passed. Since there is no error apparent on the face of the record, the petition under section 84 of the Act was not considered. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging pre-assessment notice and assessment order, violation of principles of natural justice, non-speaking order, availability of required documents, opportunity to produce documents, rectification petition under Section 84 of TNVAT Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under TNVAT and CST Acts, received a labour work order in 2013 for a specific project. The petitioner claimed to have not availed any input tax credit as the purchases made were solely for the labour contract. However, due to delayed submission of statutory returns for the year 2013-14, the respondent issued a pre-assessment notice in January 2015, rejecting the annual return and imposing tax and penalty without considering the documents provided later. The petitioner argued that the assessment order lacked understanding of the transactions and violated principles of natural justice by not allowing an opportunity to produce necessary documents.

The respondent contended that the delay in filing annual returns and failure to provide sales details led to the best judgment assessment. The court noted the absence of required documents during the assessment period, leading to the impugned order. However, considering the petitioner's claim of possessing all necessary documents, the court granted an opportunity to submit the relevant materials for fresh assessment. The court set aside the previous order and remitted the matter back to the respondent, allowing the petitioner two weeks to file the required documents. The respondent was directed to pass a new order within four weeks of document submission, emphasizing no further extensions would be granted.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition, ordering a re-assessment based on the documents to be provided by the petitioner within the stipulated timeframe. The rectification petition under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act was deemed unnecessary following the setting aside of the initial assessment order. The judgment focused on upholding principles of natural justice and ensuring a fair opportunity for the petitioner to present relevant evidence for assessment purposes.