2017 (9) TMI 679 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Revision of assessment - case of petitioner is that till the review is decided by the second respondent, the petitioner s assessment need not be revised - Held that - Considering the fact that already one of the dealers, who is similarly placed to that of the petitioner has filed a review petition, pursuant to the direction issued by this Court and the matter is now pending consideration before the authority, similar direction should be issued in the instant case, so as to protect the interest of the dealer as well as to ensure that correct rate of tax is collected from the dealer and the interest of the Revenue would also safe-guarded - the writ petition is disposed of, by directing the petitioner to file a review petition under Section 48-A (4) of the TNVAT Act to review Clarification dated 22.07.2014.

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment of sales turnover at a higher tax rate than initially deemed.
2. Consideration of objection raised by petitioner before revising assessment.
3. Review petition filed by another dealer and pending consideration before the authority.
4. Direction to file a review petition under Section 48-A (4) of TNVAT Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under TNVAT Act and CST Act engaged in manufacturing printing machinery, was initially deemed assessed for the year 2015-2016. Subsequently, the first respondent proposed to revise the assessment, stating the sales turnover is taxable at 14.5% instead of 5%. The petitioner objected, citing a pending review petition before the authority for Clarification and Advance Ruling. Despite the objection and reference to a previous court order, the first respondent proceeded with the assessment without considering the objection fully. The court noted the incorrect assessment procedure and directed the petitioner to file a review petition under Section 48-A (4) of TNVAT Act to review the Clarification dated 22.07.2014.

In light of a similar review petition filed by another dealer and pending consideration, the court directed the second respondent to decide on both review petitions expeditiously. Until a decision is made, the first respondent was instructed to assess the petitioner at the rate of 5% on plant and machinery. The revision of assessment would be subject to the second respondent's decision, and any liability for a higher tax rate would not be subject to the question of limitation at a later stage. The court aimed to protect the dealer's interest, ensure correct tax collection, and safeguard revenue interests.

Overall, the writ petition was disposed of with the directive for the petitioner to file a review petition and for the authorities to expedite the decision-making process. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed as a result of the judgment.