2017 (8) TMI 1147 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of petition - Rectification of mistake - Section 84 of the TNVAT Act - whether the petitioner should be permitted to challenge the correctness of the impugned orders by way of writ petitions when a revisional remedy is available as against the impugned orders before the Joint Commissioner (CT) Chennai (Central)? - Held that - the contention raised by the petitioner to state that there is error apparent on the face of the record is not purely a legal issue but a mixed question of fact and law. The respondent has noted that the income-tax certification was passed apart from the Audit Report and Form-WW duly signed by a Chartered Accountant and the contention raised by the petitioner that certification holds good only for the purpose of income-tax assessment is not acceptable. Prima facie this Court is of the view that such a finding recorded by the respondent is correct - Admittedly the revisional remedy before the Joint Commissioner is not only effective but also an efficacious remedy. Since the matter involves levy of tax and there is enactment governing the transactions which provides for hierarchy of remedies the petitioner should not be permitted to by-pass such alternative remedy available to the petitioner - petition dismissed being not maintainable.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to rejection of applications under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act - Error in reporting sales of cars - Jurisdiction for tax levy - Writ petitions maintainability.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the TNVAT Act, challenged orders rejecting applications under Section 84 of the Act regarding alleged discrepancies in reporting sales of cars. The respondent proposed to revise assessments based on Audit Report findings of unreported car sales. The petitioner claimed clerical errors in reporting and sought rectification under Section 84, stating that sales were interstate and not subject to Tamil Nadu tax jurisdiction.

The rejection of the petitioner's applications was based on the respondent's assessment of the alleged errors. The Court considered whether the petitioner could challenge the orders via writ petitions instead of using the revisional remedy before the Joint Commissioner (CT), Chennai. The petitioner argued that the errors were apparent on record and should be rectified by the respondent.

The Court held that the issue was a mixed question of fact and law, noting that the respondent's findings were prima facie correct. It emphasized the availability of an effective revisional remedy and the hierarchy of remedies under the Act. The Court concluded that the petitioner should not bypass the revisional remedy and dismissed the writ petitions, stating they were not maintainable.

The Court allowed the petitioner to file revisions before the Joint Commissioner within the limitation period, ensuring that if filed within fifteen days of the order, they would not be rejected on grounds of limitation. The writ petitions were dismissed without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.