9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 888 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRecovery of tax and penalty - Assessment years 2007-09 to 2010-11 - TNVAT Act - Held that - Though such a stand has been taken by the Commissioner, unfortunately his officers have not understood the matter in the manner now projected by the Commissioner. The second respondent/ Assessing officer understood the order as a clarification or in other words as a positive direction. However, the Assessing Officer taking note of the fact that the issue is sub-judice, had addressed the Deputy Commissioner seeking clarification vide his letter dated 21.03.2018 in which he specifically asked for guidance whether to cancel all the proceedings levying penalty at higher rate and treating the goods sold by the petitioner as unbranded goods - the stand taken by the Commissioner in the additional Counter affidavit is rejected as an afterthought as the Department has understood the order dated 26.10.2016 as a positive direction for implementation. Part of the prayer sought for by the petitioner has been granted by the Department inasmuch as revised Assessment orders have been passed on 07.06.2018. Consequently, the impugned demand cannot survive any longer. This is not on account of any interpretation of the statute or applying a legal principle, but solely attributable to the orders passed by the Commissioner in favour of the assessee Petition allowed in part.
Issues:
Challenge to notice for recovery of tax and penalty under Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for assessment years 2007-09 to 2010-11. Effect of the order passed by the first respondent dated 26.10.2016. Interpretation of the Commissioner's order by the Assessing Officer. Compliance with directions issued by the Joint Commissioner and subsequent revised Assessment Order. Department's stand on the legality of the Commissioner's order. Issue 1: Challenge to Recovery Notice The petitioner challenged a notice for recovery of tax and penalty under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for specific assessment years. The notice demanded a substantial amount, prompting the petitioner to seek a revised Assessment Order in line with a previous order by the first respondent dated 26.10.2016. Issue 2: Effect of First Respondent's Order The order by the first respondent highlighted that certain provisions and factual aspects did not support the Assessing Officer's decision to levy tax at a higher rate on specific food products. This order raised concerns about the correctness of the Assessing Officer's actions and prompted further review. Issue 3: Interpretation of Commissioner's Order The Assessing Officer sought guidance on implementing the Commissioner's order, indicating confusion regarding the implications of the order. The Joint Commissioner intervened, issuing specific instructions for compliance, leading to the subsequent revised Assessment Order dropping the penalty. Issue 4: Department's Stand on Commissioner's Order The Commissioner's counter affidavit stated that the Commissioner's order was not binding on the Assessing Officer and clarified the Department's position on taxing branded food and drinks. However, discrepancies arose in how the Department interpreted and implemented the Commissioner's order. Conclusion The writ petition was allowed based on the Department's actions following the Commissioner's order, resulting in revised Assessment Orders and the dropping of penalties. The impugned demand was deemed unsustainable, and the second respondent was directed to issue a fresh demand notice in line with the revised Assessment Orders. The judgment highlighted the importance of proper interpretation and implementation of legal directives in tax matters.
|
