9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (1) TMI 242 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxValidity of Section 19(11) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - Assessing Authority notes the filing of declaration in Form Q in terms of Section 23 of the Act - HELD THAT - The writ petitions challenging the vires of Section 19(11) were dismissed in USA AGENCIES VERSUS THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER 2013 (8) TMI 532 - MADRAS HIGH COURT and the matters thereafter travelled to Supreme Court wherein the vires of provision was again upheld in ALD AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER NOW UPGRADED AS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) ORS. 2018 (10) TMI 814 - SUPREME COURT . The judgment of the Supreme Court is dated 12.10.2018. It would have been appropriate for the petitioner to have challenged the orders of assessment passed originally immediately thereafter and within the period of 30 days granted in this regard, which timeframe was not availed by the petitioner. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions, the petitioner explains the delay in filing statutory appeals placing the blame at the door of the clerk of the Advocate on record (AOR). At para 7 the petitioner states that certified copy of the order was not applied for by the AOR and it was only in 2019 when recovery proceedings were initiated that the petitioner woke up and pursued the matter with him - the appeal filed by R2 may be restored upon remittance of further 25% of the disputed tax in addition to the 25% of the disputed tax already remitted by it. The petitioner is directed to remit a further 25% of the disputed taxes within a period of three (3) weeks from today - Petition disposed off.
Issues:
Challenge to orders rejecting appeals on the ground of limitation. Analysis: The petitioner challenged orders dated 11.09.2020 passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner rejecting the appeals as time-barred. The petitioner had previously challenged the validity of Section 19(11) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 before the High Court in a writ petition. Despite this challenge, assessment orders were passed, and the petitioner informed the Assessing Officer about the pending challenge, requesting deferral of assessment proceedings until the issue was resolved. The impugned assessment orders noted the filing of a declaration in Form Q under Section 23 of the Act. Previous writ petitions challenging the provision were dismissed, and the Supreme Court upheld the provision's validity in a subsequent case. The court noted that the petitioner should have challenged the assessment orders immediately after the Supreme Court judgment, within the 30-day period provided, which the petitioner failed to do. In the affidavit filed, the petitioner attributed the delay in filing statutory appeals to the advocate's clerk. The petitioner claimed that the certified copy of the order was not applied for by the advocate on record, and it was only in 2019, during recovery proceedings, that the petitioner pursued the matter. Considering the explanation provided, the court decided to restore the appeal upon the remittance of an additional 25% of the disputed tax, in addition to the 25% already remitted. The Government Advocate did not object to this decision. Consequently, the writ petitions were disposed of, setting aside the order dated 11.09.2020. The petitioner was directed to remit the further 25% of the disputed taxes within three weeks. Upon proof of remittance, the appeal would be restored for adjudication after hearing the petitioner on merits, following the law, with no costs imposed.
|
