2016 (3) TMI 932 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Availability of an alternative remedy - Reversal of input tax credit - Input tax credit was reversed to the appellant in the main appeal as well as in the rectification appeal but the question regarding the prevention of appellant from filing manual returns and whether the password was given belatedly was not considered in such rectification order passed under Section 84 - Held that - it is true that there is a remedy of revision. But, a revisional remedy is not exactly equivalent to an appellate remedy. The questions Whether the appellant was given password to enable them to file a return online only belatedly and whether it was not allowed to file manual returns are the questions that were not even gone into in the order passed under Section 84 which shows clear non application of mind by assessing officer. Therefore, the appellant could not have been driven to the alternative remedy of revision under Section 54. - Matter remanded back

Summary

Issues:
1. Availability of alternative remedy - Revision under Section 54 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.
2. Delay in providing password for online assessment.
3. Reversal of input tax credit without considering crucial factors.
4. Non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer.

Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case was the availability of an alternative remedy of revision under Section 54 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The appellant had initially approached the court through a writ petition after the Assessing Officer reversed the input tax credit. However, the court dismissed the petition citing the availability of the revisional remedy. The court acknowledged that while revision is an option, it is not equivalent to an appellate remedy.

2. The second issue revolved around the delay in providing the appellant with the password necessary for online assessment. The appellant claimed that the password was given belatedly, impacting their ability to file returns online. This delay in providing access to online assessment tools was crucial to the case and had not been adequately considered in the previous orders.

3. Another significant issue was the reversal of input tax credit without considering essential factors such as the delay in providing the password and the appellant's ability to file manual returns. The Assessing Officer's decision to reverse the credit was based on the timing of the registration certificate issuance, overlooking critical aspects that could have influenced the outcome.

4. The final issue highlighted was the non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer in both the original order and the subsequent order passed under Section 84 of the Act. The failure to address important facts, such as the delayed provision of the password and the appellant's inability to file manual returns, indicated a lack of thorough consideration by the Assessing Officer.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the writ appeal, setting aside the previous orders and remitting the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh determination. The court directed the Assessing Officer to consider crucial questions regarding the timing of the registration certificate issuance and the appellant's ability to file returns, whether online or manually. This judgment emphasized the importance of a comprehensive assessment of all relevant factors before making decisions regarding tax credits and highlighted the significance of proper application of mind by the Assessing Officer.