2018 (10) TMI 2 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Revision of assessment - rejection of revision on the ground that petitioner have not filed any fresh records and grounds warranting to revise the assessment - section 84 of the TNVAT Act - Validity of Order of Attachment. Held that - A perusal of the impugned orders would indicate otherwise that the Assessing Officer, in fact, has observed in Paragraph No.2 that the documents along with Section 84 applications were already filed by the Assessee and were already examined by the Assessing Officer - the impugned orders passed by the 3rd respondent cannot sustain the scrutiny of this Court, since the same was not by considering the materials already placed on record which were examined by the Assessing Officer. The matter is remitted to the 3rd respondent for considering the rectification petition filed by the petitioner and pass orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of application under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act.
2. Challenge against the order of attachment passed by the second respondent.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Rejection of application under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act
The petitioner challenged the proceedings of the 3rd respondent rejecting their request to revise the assessment under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, citing the lack of fresh records and grounds for revision. The petitioner argued that the Assessing Officer did not consider the facts and circumstances presented in the application properly. The Additional Government Pleader contended that the petitioner wanted to introduce new documents, but there was no apparent error on the record for revision. However, it was noted that the documents were already submitted and examined by the Assessing Officer. The court found that the rejection lacked proper consideration of the materials on record and the grounds raised by the petitioner. The court set aside the impugned proceedings and remitted the matter back to the 3rd respondent for a fresh consideration of the rectification petition, emphasizing the need for reasons and findings to be provided while dealing with the grounds raised by the petitioner.

Issue 2: Challenge against the order of attachment
The petitioner also challenged the order of attachment passed by the second respondent. The court, after finding a prima facie case, granted an interim order allowing the petitioner to operate their bank accounts, subject to maintaining a specific balance to cover the disputed tax liability. However, since the matter was remitted back to the 3rd respondent, the court directed the petitioner to maintain the specified balance until a new order was passed. The court emphasized the need to protect the interests of both parties until a final decision was made by the 3rd respondent. No costs were awarded in this matter.

In conclusion, the High Court of Madras allowed the writ petitions, set aside the impugned proceedings, and directed the 3rd respondent to reconsider the rectification petition filed by the petitioner with proper reasons and findings. The court also issued specific directions regarding the operation of bank accounts to protect the interests of both parties until a new order was issued by the 3rd respondent.