9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 1162 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxValidity of assessment order - rectification petition - alternative remedy of appeal - section 84 of TNVAT Act - Held that - the orders of assessment dated 18.07.2016, were sought to be rectified by filing applications under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 and finding that there is no error apparent on the face of the record, said petitions have been dismissed on 30.09.2016. Assessment orders merges with the orders passed in the rectification petitions. When the petitioner/appellant is aware of the dismissal of the rectification petitions, it is not known as to how, the petitioner/appellant, has not chosen to challenge the subsequent orders. An order under rectification petition can be challenged only by way of a revision under Section 54 of the Act. Despite the same, exercising discretion in favour of the appellant, writ Court has granted liberty to file the appeal - When the writ Court has relegated the said issue to be adjudicated before the competent authority, if any appeal is filed, finding to be record by us on the above, would amount to transgressing the powers of the appellate authority to address both on facts and Law. Direction of the writ Court, cannot be said to be erroneous. When subject matter is relegated to the concerned forum or the authorities concerned, as the case may be, writ Court is not bound to record a finding either on fact or law. In such a view of the matter, contentions to the counter are not tenable. On more than one occasion, the Hon ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, consistently held that writ against the assessment orders, ought not to be interfered with, when there is an effective and alternative remedy under the taxation statute. When a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation - The High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to assessment orders for the years 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13. 2. Reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) and levy of penalty. 3. Dismissal of rectification petitions under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act. 4. Jurisdictional error and question of law regarding adjustment of payments to the sub-contractor. 5. Alternative remedy and exhaustion of statutory remedies. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Challenge to Assessment Orders for the Years 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13: The appellant, M/s. Coastal Oil and Gas Infrastructure Private Limited, challenged the assessment orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Cuddalore Town Circle, for the assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13. The orders determined the taxable turnover and levied taxes and penalties for non-disclosure of deemed sales value of goods. 2. Reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) and Levy of Penalty: For the assessment year 2010-11, the total and taxable turnover was determined at ?12,80,22,410.00 with a tax due of ?51,20,896.00. The ITC claim of ?18,83,026.00 was reversed due to insurance claims for cyclone damage. A penalty of ?76,81,344.00 was levied for wilful non-disclosure of deemed sale value. Similar assessments and penalties were imposed for the years 2011-12 and 2012-13, with total demands amounting to ?20,46,10,713.00 for all three years. 3. Dismissal of Rectification Petitions under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act: The appellant filed rectification petitions under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, alleging errors in the assessment orders. The Assistant Commissioner dismissed these petitions, stating there were no errors or mistakes in the original orders. The appellant did not challenge these dismissal orders. 4. Jurisdictional Error and Question of Law Regarding Adjustment of Payments to the Sub-contractor: The appellant contended that the assessing officer failed to consider payments made to the sub-contractor, ABIR Infrastructures Private Limited, under Rule 8(5) of the TNVAT Rules, 2007. The writ court dismissed the petitions, granting liberty to the appellant to approach the appellate authority for this issue. 5. Alternative Remedy and Exhaustion of Statutory Remedies: The court emphasized that the appellant should have exhausted the statutory remedies provided under the TNVAT Act before filing writ petitions. The court cited several Supreme Court rulings, stating that writ petitions should not be entertained when an effective and alternative remedy is available. The court dismissed the writ appeals, reiterating that the appellant could address the issues before the appellate authority. Conclusion: The court dismissed the writ appeals, emphasizing the need for the appellant to exhaust statutory remedies and approach the appellate authority for grievances regarding the assessment orders and the adjustment of payments to the sub-contractor. The court upheld the assessment orders and penalties, providing detailed reasoning and referencing relevant legal precedents.
|
