2024 (2) TMI 9 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Proper forum - whether the direction issued by this Court to the petitioner herein to submit the necessary documents before the authority concerned was intended to mean the 'Tribunal' or the 'Assessing Authority'? - HELD THAT - The expression authority concerned mentioned in the order dated 22.04.2022, was only meant the 'Tribunal' and not the 'Assessing Authority'. Resultantly, the orders of the second respondent dated 31.05.2022 were made erroneously assuming jurisdiction and thus, a nullity. As a sequitur , the orders dated 03.06.2023 passed by the 1st Respondent, which were made, on the premise that the orders dated 31.05.2022 of the 2nd Respondent are prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, would no longer survive rather also become non est . Since it is found that the direction issued by this Court vide order dated 22.04.2022 made in W.P.Nos.34578 and 36676 to 36691 of 2015 has been misconceived by both the petitioner and the Revenue, in the peculiar circumstances, we are inclined to permit the assessee / petitioner herein to submit the documents in support of his claim before the Tribunal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petition disposed off.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the orders passed by the Joint Commissioner (ST) and the Assistant Commissioner (ST) under the TNGST Act and CST Act for the assessment years 1990-91 to 1998-99.
2. Clarification of the term "authority concerned" as mentioned in the court's previous order.
3. Legitimacy of the re-assessment and revision notices issued by the Revenue.
4. Disposition of the original side appeals filed by the Revenue.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Orders:
All the writ petitions were filed by the assessee challenging the orders of the Joint Commissioner (ST), Salem Division, dated 03.06.2023, and the consequential orders of the Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC) Kumarapalayam Assessment Circle, Sankari, Salem, dated 15.06.2023, for the assessment years 1990-91 to 1998-99 under the TNGST Act and CST Act. The core contention was that these orders were passed without jurisdiction and were barred by limitation.

2. Clarification of "Authority Concerned":
The original side appeals were filed by the Revenue, with O.S.A.No. 86 of 2023 challenging an order directing to obtain clarification from the Division Bench regarding the term "authority concerned" mentioned in the previous order dated 22.04.2022. The court clarified that the term "authority concerned" referred to the Tribunal and not the Assessing Authority. Consequently, the orders dated 31.05.2022 by the second respondent were deemed to have been made erroneously and were declared a nullity.

3. Legitimacy of Re-assessment and Revision Notices:
The petitioner contended that the re-assessment proceedings initiated by the second respondent and the subsequent revision notices were impermissible and barred by limitation. The court found that the re-assessment orders dated 31.05.2022 were made under a misconception and lacked jurisdiction. Therefore, the revision notices and the orders dated 03.06.2023 based on these re-assessment orders were also invalid.

4. Disposition of Original Side Appeals:
Given the court's clarification that the term "authority concerned" referred to the Tribunal, the writ petitions were disposed of by permitting the petitioner to submit the necessary documents before the Tribunal within four weeks. The Tribunal was directed to decide the matter on merits within four weeks thereafter. Consequently, O.S.A.No.86 of 2023 was closed, and O.S.A.No.99 of 2023 was disposed of, allowing the official liquidator to proceed as per law.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the orders dated 31.05.2022 and 03.06.2023 were invalid due to a jurisdictional error. The petitioner was allowed to present documents before the Tribunal, which would decide the matter afresh. All writ petitions and miscellaneous petitions were disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →