9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (4) TMI 467 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxLevy of penalty - Exemption from levy of tax - TNVAT Act - non-filing of Form-WW - violation of Section 63A(1) of the TNVAT Act - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - It is seen that the impugned order of assessment was passed on the reason that the petitioner has not responded to the notice of proposal. The impugned order has referred to three notices viz., 04.01.2019, 01.03.2019 and 22.04.2019. Insofar as the first notice dated 04.01.2019 is concerned, the petitioner is not disputing the receipt of the same and however, it is stated that the petitioner has paid the penalty of ₹ 10,000/- on 01.06.2019. Insofar as the other two notices viz., 01.03.2019 and 22.04.2019 are concerned, it is the specific case of the petitioner that those notices were not served on the petitioner. It is for the respondent to establish the proof of service. However, it is stated that the respondent is not having acknowledgment or returned post relevant to the notice dated 22.04.2019. Therefore, it is to be construed that no such notice was served on the petitioner. Thus, it is evident that the impugned order was passed without issuing notice to the petitioner or effecting proper service of the same. This Court is of the view that a final opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner so as to enable them to appear and place all the material documents before the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment on merits and in accordance with law - the matter is remitted back to the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment - Petition allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
- Alleged violation of Section 63A(1) of TNVAT Act - Allegation of not filing Form-WW - Impugned order passed without proper notice - Violation of principles of natural justice - Proof of service of notices - Setting aside the impugned order - Remitting the matter back to the Assessing Officer Analysis: The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, engaged in trading unbranded butter exempted from tax, was aggrieved by an assessment order for the year 2017-2018. The petitioner claimed to have disclosed all details in monthly returns but was penalized for allegedly violating Section 63A(1) by not filing Form-WW, leading to a penalty payment. Subsequently, the Director was arrested under the CGST Act, and notices were issued without proper service, raising concerns of natural justice violation. The High Court noted that while the petitioner acknowledged and paid the penalty for the first notice, the other two notices were disputed, with the petitioner claiming non-service. The Court observed that without proof of service, the impugned order lacked proper notice and service, emphasizing the importance of establishing service. The Court refrained from commenting on the exemption claim's merits, directing the matter back to the Assessing Officer for reassessment. Concluding that the impugned order was solely based on the petitioner's failure to respond to one notice, the Court granted a final opportunity for the petitioner to present all necessary documents for a fair assessment. The Court set conditions for the reassessment process, including filing objections with supporting documents within two weeks, a personal hearing, and a fresh assessment within four weeks thereafter. Failure to comply would result in the restoration of the impugned order automatically, emphasizing adherence to the specified terms. In the final order, the Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a reassessment based on the terms outlined. The Court clarified that it did not express any opinion on the claim's merits, leaving it to the Assessing Officer to evaluate and decide, with no costs imposed. The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed accordingly.
|
