2022 (1) TMI 1065 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of petition - time limitation - writ petitions have been filed belatedly long after the statutory period of limitation for filing an appeal had expired under the provisions of TNVAT Act - HELD THAT - One option available is to ask the petitioner to workout the remedy before the Appellate Authority and by asking the Appellate Authority to dispose the appeal on merits or in the alternative relegate the petitioner to give a proper reply before the respondent on terms. Considering the fact that the amount involved may or may not be liable to tax under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, as the amount which has been received by the petitioner was reportedly liable to tax under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, the impugned orders are set aside and the cases remitted back to the respondent to pass a fresh order on merits, subject to the petitioner depositing 30% of the disputed tax for each of the Assessment Year, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition allowed by way of remand.

Issues:
Petitioner's delay in approaching the court against impugned orders for Assessment Years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016.
Petitioner's claim of having a strong case on merits due to inability to participate in proceedings.
Respondent's argument of petitioner's negligence in not filing replies to notices.
Court's consideration of remitting the cases back to respondent for fresh orders.

Analysis:

The petitioner approached the court against the impugned orders for Assessment Years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016, two years after the orders were passed by the respondent. The writ petitions were filed after the statutory period of limitation for filing an appeal had expired under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The petitioner claimed to have a strong case on merits as the demand for Value Added Tax had been confirmed under the Finance Act, 1994, but could not participate in proceedings due to personal reasons related to caring for ailing family members. The petitioner submitted documents to support this claim.

The respondent, represented by the learned Additional Government Pleader, argued that the petitioner had been negligent and recalcitrant in not filing replies to various notices issued over the years. The respondent contended that the writ petitions should be dismissed due to delays on the part of the petitioner. In response, the petitioner's counsel requested the petitioner be allowed to participate in a fresh round of proceedings on certain terms.

After considering the arguments presented by both parties, the court deliberated on the available options. One option considered was to direct the petitioner to pursue remedies before the Appellate Authority or to provide a proper reply before the respondent. The court noted that the amount involved may or may not be liable to tax under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, as it was reportedly liable to tax under the Finance Act, 1994. Consequently, the court decided to set aside the impugned orders and remit the cases back to the respondent for fresh orders on merits, with the condition that the petitioner deposits 30% of the disputed tax for each Assessment Year within thirty days.

The court granted the petitioner liberty to file a reply or written submission within fifteen days and disposed of the Writ Petitions with the specified conditions. No costs were awarded, and connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions were closed as a result of the judgment.

← Previous Next →