2017 (9) TMI 1470 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of assessment order - discrepancy between the returns filed by the petitioner and the details in Annexure II filed by the other end dealers - non-production of the certificates to show that tax has been deducted at source - Held that - the respondent / Assessing Officer has given due credit to the Forms R & T produced by the petitioner for the relevant assessment years and issued the certificates - issuance of the certificates alone will not suffice, since the assessment orders have to be consequently revised. Therefore, necessarily, the Assessing Officer has to pass revised assessment orders and in that regard, this Court is inclined to issue appropriate directions, by remanding the matters to the respondent, for passing fresh orders - matters are to be remanded to the respondent, this Court is of the view that an opportunity can be granted to the petitioner to raise objections to the mismatch issue - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Discrepancy between returns filed by the petitioner and details in Annexure II filed by other dealers.
2. Non-production of certificates to show tax deduction at source.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a Civil Engineering Contractor, challenged assessment orders under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act for the years 2014-15 and 2015-16. Two main issues were highlighted in the pre-revision notices: a discrepancy in returns and non-production of tax deduction certificates. The petitioner, after obtaining TDS certificates, approached the Assessing Officer, who accepted the forms and issued revised certificates reducing the tax liabilities for both years significantly.

The petitioner's primary grievance was the necessity for revised assessment orders based on the new certificates to facilitate potential appeals. The petitioner feared that without revised orders, the appellate authority might not consider the certificates and demand pre-deposits based on the original assessment amounts. The petitioner also addressed the mismatch issue, explaining that their previous responses were requests for time extension, not formal objections.

The High Court observed that while the Assessing Officer acknowledged the new forms and issued certificates, revised assessment orders were crucial. Consequently, the Court directed the Assessing Officer to revise the assessment orders for both years based on the certificates issued. The petitioner was granted an opportunity to raise objections regarding the mismatch issue, emphasizing the need for a formal response within ten days. The Assessing Officer was instructed to consider these objections, conduct a personal hearing, and issue fresh assessment orders in compliance with the law and relevant precedents.

In conclusion, the writ petitions were disposed of with directions for the Assessing Officer to revise the assessment orders, consider the petitioner's objections, and issue fresh orders based on the certificates provided. The petitioner was required to submit objections promptly, and the Assessing Officer was tasked with ensuring a fair assessment process in line with legal requirements.