9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 942 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxAssessment of escaped turnover - time limitation - it is submitted that the impugned orders are clearly vitiated by limitation as the same are beyond six years from the date of assessment - Section 27 of TNVAT Act - Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13 - HELD THAT - Learned counsel adverting to the impugned order submits that sufficient opportunity has been given to the writ petitioner and in support of her contention, learned counsel draws the attention of this Court to the tabulation which talks about nature of opportunity given. It appears that opportunity has in fact been given to the writ petitioner, but there are lacunae, which this Court is able to see. They are, the impugned order does not say what transpired on 07.12.2020 and does not even mention the term 'personal hearing'. The other lacuna is, objections, though received on 10.03.2021, have not been considered in the impugned order dated 12.03.2021. Impugned orders are set aside solely on the ground that there is no mention about personal hearing on 07.12.2020 in spite of a specific directive from this Court and the objections of the writ petitioner received on 10.03.2021 have not been considered - Petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Limitation period for assessment under Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 2. Requirement of personal hearing in assessment proceedings Issue 1: Limitation period for assessment under Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 The judgment addresses the challenge to two orders made under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13. The petitioner argued that the orders were beyond the six-year limitation period from the date of assessment. However, the court noted that this argument had been conclusively decided in a previous round of litigation and upheld by another Honorable single Judge. The court cited relevant legal principles from previous judgments to establish that assessment proceedings must be considered pending from initiation until final assessment. The court rejected the petitioner's limitation argument based on the previous decision. Furthermore, the court examined the assessment process and found deficiencies in the reconciliation exercise conducted by the Officer. It was observed that the Officer failed to compare the materials filed by the assessee with the requirements of the Rules, leading to a lack of proper assessment. As a result, the impugned assessments were set aside, and the petitioner was directed to appear before the Assessing Officer with all relevant particulars for a de novo assessment within a specified timeframe. Issue 2: Requirement of personal hearing in assessment proceedings The judgment also delves into the requirement of a personal hearing in assessment proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The court referenced a previous order where it was held that a personal hearing is not statutorily imperative for passing orders under Section 27 of the Act. However, in the present case, the Honorable Judge had granted a personal hearing, and it was deemed necessary to comply with this order. Regarding the specific instance of a personal hearing scheduled for the writ petitioner, the court noted discrepancies in the consideration of objections and the absence of mention of the term "personal hearing" in the impugned order. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside due to procedural lapses, and a new personal hearing was scheduled. The court emphasized that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and directed the respondent to conduct a fresh assessment within a specified timeframe following the personal hearing. In conclusion, the judgment thoroughly examines the issues related to the limitation period for assessment under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and the requirement of a personal hearing in assessment proceedings. It provides detailed analysis, citing legal principles and previous judgments to support its conclusions, ultimately setting aside the impugned orders and directing a fresh assessment process in compliance with the court's directives.
|
