2021 (4) TMI 125 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Omission to report purchase value - wrong availment of input tax credit - assessment of tax on deemed assessment basis under Section 22(2) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 - contention of the department is that the petitioner who is a dealer in cements and who availed trade discount from the manufacturer, did not adhere to the parameters laid down in Section 19(20) of TNVAT Act, 2006 r/w Rule 10(6)(b)(ii)(c) of TNVAT Rules, 2006 - HELD THAT - The respondent without any basis had concluded that the petitioner has disturbed the tax component. It is certainly open to the manufacturer to reward the petitioner with trade discount and by no stretch of imagination, that can be added to the taxable turnover of the petitioner for the purpose of coming to the conclusion that the petitioner had wrongly availed ITC. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Assessment on deemed assessment basis under Section 22(2) of TNVAT Act, 2006 for the assessment year 2012-13; Allegations of omission in reporting purchase value and wrongful availing of input tax credit; Compliance with Section 19(20) of TNVAT Act, 2006 and Rule 10(6)(b)(ii)(c) of TNVAT Rules, 2006; Application of legal principles from previous judgments.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered dealer, was assessed on a total and taxable turnover under Section 22(2) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 for the assessment year 2012-13. Subsequently, a pre-revision notice was issued alleging the omission of purchase value and wrongful input tax credit availing. The petitioner's explanation was deemed unsatisfactory, leading to a demand for additional tax and penalty. The respondent contended that the writ petition was premature without exhausting alternative remedies.

Upon review, the court found that the alleged suppression of purchase value was not valid as the transactions were reflected in the audit report. The court emphasized that the omission in the returns did not warrant penalization if details were correctly disclosed elsewhere. The main issue centered around the alleged wrongful input tax credit availing by the petitioner, a cement dealer.

The court scrutinized the application of Section 19(20) of TNVAT Act, 2006 and Rule 10(6)(b)(ii)(c) of TNVAT Rules, 2006. Referring to a previous judgment, the court highlighted that trade discounts received by the petitioner did not enhance taxable value and should not be added to turnover for assessing input tax credit. The court concluded that the respondent's decision lacked a basis and quashed the order, allowing the writ petition despite the availability of an alternative appeal remedy due to the absence of contentious factual issues and the prolonged duration of the case. The petitioner's compliance with statutory rules was upheld, and the petition was allowed without costs.

In summary, the judgment addressed issues related to assessment under TNVAT Act, 2006, allegations of omission and wrongful availing of input tax credit, compliance with statutory rules, and the application of legal principles from prior judgments to determine the validity of the respondent's claims.