2018 (4) TMI 533 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Reassessment - occurrence of mismatch - Held that - identical issue decided in the case of M/s. JKM Graphics Solutions Private Limited Versus The Commercial Tax Officer 2017 (3) TMI 536 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , where The Court has directed the Assessing Officer to evaluate a centralised mechanism exclusively to deal with the cases of mismatch and to do some exercise, before issuing a notice. The matter is remitted back to the Assessing Officer to re-do the assessment commencing from the stage of issuing notice of proposal - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petitioner challenging assessment proceedings of the 1st respondent for multiple assessment years under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.
2. Allegation of assessment being contrary to the law and principles of natural justice.
3. Previous court decision directing a centralised mechanism for cases of mismatch.
4. Respondent's submission on re-doing assessment following court order.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed writ petitions challenging the assessment proceedings of the 1st respondent for the assessment years 2012-13, 2014-15, and 2015-16 under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the proceedings as contrary to the law and principles of natural justice.

2. The petitioner's counsel argued that the issue of mismatch was covered by a previous court decision directing the Assessing Officer to establish a centralised mechanism for handling such cases before issuing notices. The court emphasized the need for a fair and reasonable procedure to deal with discrepancies to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings and protect revenue interests.

3. The respondent, represented by the Government Advocate (Tax), acknowledged the court's previous decision and agreed that the Assessing Officer must re-do the assessment following the procedures and guidelines outlined in the court's order.

4. Considering the submissions, the court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the impugned orders, and remitted the matters back to the Assessing Officer for reassessment. The Assessing Officer was directed to follow the court's guidelines, provide a personal hearing to the petitioner, and complete the reassessment within eight weeks. The order of attachment passed by the 1st respondent was lifted, and no costs were imposed. Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed accordingly.