9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (6) TMI 960 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRectification under Section 84 of TNVAT Act - Held that - perusal of the order under challenge, especially, paragraph No.14, only leads to the inference that the Assessing Authority has misconstrued that this Court, in W.P. Nos. 2595 to 2598 of 2017 permitted the appellant to agitate their grievance in respect of defect Nos. 1 and 10 alone, while, in fact, the appellant had been permitted to include issues with regard to other defects as well. Such an understanding of the order of this Court by the respondent could only be termed as improper. At the same time, the intimation letter of the respondent dated 10.03.2017 cannot be allowed to stand - the respondent is directed to consider the issues raised in the rectification petitions filed by the appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of the order dated 03.02.2017 in W.P. Nos. 2595 to 2598 of 2017. 2. Misconstrued understanding of the order by the Assessing Authority. 3. Validity of the intimation letter dated 10.03.2017. 4. Challenge of the intimation letter versus filing a Writ Appeal. Analysis: Issue 1: Interpretation of the order dated 03.02.2017 The writ appeals challenge the order dated 03.02.2017 in W.P. Nos. 2595 to 2598 of 2017, where the appellant was granted leave to file a petition under Section 84 of TNVAT Act, 2006, in relation to defect Nos. 1 and 10. The appellant was also permitted to include other issues related to the defects pointed out in the inspection report. The court clarified that the appellant was not bound to include only defect Nos. 1 and 10 in the rectification petition under Section 84, allowing for a broader scope of issues to be raised. Issue 2: Misconstrued understanding by the Assessing Authority The Assessing Authority misconstrued the court's order and incorrectly believed that the appellant was only allowed to address defect Nos. 1 and 10 in the rectification petition. This misunderstanding led to the issuance of a letter dated 10.03.2017, limiting the consideration of the dealer's reply under Section 84 to defect Nos. 1 and 10. The court deemed this interpretation improper and clarified that the appellant had the right to include issues related to all defects, not just defect Nos. 1 and 10. Issue 3: Validity of the intimation letter dated 10.03.2017 The intimation letter dated 10.03.2017 from the respondent restricted the dealer's contentions under Section 84 to defect Nos. 1 and 10 only, disregarding the broader scope permitted by the court's order. The court found this limitation unacceptable and directed the Assessing Authority to consider all issues raised in the rectification petitions on their merits, in accordance with the law. Issue 4: Challenge of the intimation letter versus filing a Writ Appeal While the court acknowledged that the intimation letter dated 10.03.2017 was improper, it noted that challenging this letter directly would have been more appropriate than filing a Writ Appeal against the order dated 03.02.2017. However, the court directed the respondent to review the rectification petitions filed by the appellant comprehensively and make a decision within four weeks from the date of the court's order, emphasizing the importance of giving the appellant a fair opportunity to present their case. In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ appeals with the direction for the Assessing Authority to consider all issues raised in the rectification petitions, ensuring a fair and thorough review process in accordance with the law.
|
