2018 (1) TMI 909 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Deemed assessment - It is the case of the Plaintiff that though the payments for purchases were made, the ST-1 forms were not submitted despite repeated requests - The respondent completed the assessment, by rejecting the objections of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court - maintainability of petition. Held that - Admittedly, the petitioner has an efficacious alternate remedy, by way of filing Appeal before the Appellate Authority, and it appears that, a portion of the tax has already been remitted by the petitioner for the respective assessment years. Therefore, the petitioner can very avail alternate remedy provided under the TNVAT Act, which is not only an effective remedy, but also efficacious remedy. Writ Petitions are disposed of, by giving liberty to the petitioner to file Appeals before the Appellate Authority, and if the Appeals are filed within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the Appellate Authority shall entertain the same, without rejecting it on the ground of limitation.

Summary

Issues:
Assessment under Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - Revision notice issued based on inspection - Objections raised by petitioner on penalty and equal time addition - Adjudication of disputed facts in Writ Petition - Availability of alternate remedy through Appeal - Assessing Officer's quasi-judicial function - Best judgment assessment criteria - Distinction between assessments based on dealer's accounts and best judgment basis - Legal principles for Appellate Authority to consider.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a case where the petitioner, a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, was deemed assessed under Section 22(2) of the Act. Subsequently, a revision notice was issued by the respondent based on an inspection conducted by Enforcement Wing Officers. The petitioner objected to the high penalty and equal time addition proposed during the assessment. The respondent completed the assessment by rejecting the objections, leading the petitioner to approach the High Court through Writ Petitions.

The Court emphasized that disputed factual issues require adjudication beyond the scope of a Writ Petition. It highlighted the availability of an alternate effective and efficacious remedy through filing an Appeal before the Appellate Authority. The judgment underscored that the Assessing Officer, as a quasi-judicial authority, should not be bound by higher authorities' directions but exercise independent judgment in completing assessments.

Referring to legal precedents, the Court discussed the criteria for best judgment assessment, distinguishing between assessments based on dealer's accounts and best judgment basis. It emphasized that equal addition as a penalty should be supported by material and not merely guesswork. The judgment quoted relevant legal principles for the Appellate Authority to consider when the petitioner files an Appeal, ensuring a fair and lawful decision-making process.

Ultimately, the Writ Petitions were disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to file Appeals before the Appellate Authority within 30 days. The Appellate Authority was directed to entertain the Appeals without rejecting them on the ground of limitation. No costs were awarded, and connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions were closed, concluding the legal proceedings in the matter.