9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 223 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRectification of error - assessments deemed to have been completed in terms of Section 22(2) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 as amended vide Act No.23 of 2012 with effect from 19.06.2012 - It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned notices issued seeking to revise the assessment on 04.11.2020 for the respective assessment years were time-barred. HELD THAT - Since the monthly returns filed by the petitioner under Section 21 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 read with Rule 7 of the TNVAT Rules, 2007 were incorrect, the respondent was entitled to pass orders dated 24.12.2020 to the best of his judgement after the completion of the year in terms of Section 22 (4) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 - There is no limitation prescribed for passing order under Section 22(4) of the TNVAT Act, 2006. The language adopted in Section 22(4) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 merely indicates that the assessment order has to be passed after the completion of that year. It would imply that such assessment orders have to be passed within the reasonable period. Assessment orders cannot be passed long after the expiry of the limitation prescribed under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, 2006, had the petitioner filed proper monthly returns in time with all the particulars as was required for completing the assessment. The Impugned Assessment Orders dated 24.12.2020 and Impugned Notices dated 20.12.2021 for Assessment Year 2011-2012 and for Assessment Year 2012-2013 challenged in W.P.No.513 of 2022 and W.P.No. 516 of 2022 are liable to be quashed. There is no merits in challenge to Assessment Orders dated 24.12.2020 and Impugned Notices dated 20.12.2021 for the Assessment Year 2013-2014 - Petition disposed off.
Issues involved:
The petitioner challenged assessment orders under Section 22(4) of TNVAT Act, 2006 and notices to pay amounts for rectification of orders under Section 84. The issues revolve around completion of assessments, timeliness of revision notices, violation of natural justice, rejection of rectification applications, and incorrectness of monthly returns. Assessment Completion and Timeliness of Revision Notices: The petitioner contended that assessments were deemed completed under Section 22(2) of TNVAT Act, 2006, and revision notices issued later were time-barred. Despite the petitioner's timely response to revision notices, the impugned assessment orders were passed without considering the replies, violating principles of natural justice. Rectification Applications and Incorrectness of Returns: The petitioner's applications for rectification of assessment orders were rejected, alleging incorrectness in claiming exemption for imported knitted fabric. The petitioner argued that previous adverse rulings did not render the filed returns incomplete or incorrect, and assessments were wrongly revised under Section 27 of TNVAT Act, 2006. Legal Stand and Binding Rulings: The respondent argued that the petitioner incorrectly claimed exemption, as confirmed by a ruling under Section 48-A of TNVAT Act, 2006. The ruling was deemed binding, making the filed returns incorrect. The respondent justified passing assessment orders under Section 22(4) of TNVAT Act, 2006 based on the best judgment. Limitation and Covid-19 Impact: The assessment orders were passed after the expiration of limitation periods under Section 27 of TNVAT Act, 2006. The petitioner's challenge to the orders for Assessment Years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 was upheld due to the lockdown's impact on limitation periods, while the challenge for 2013-2014 was dismissed with liberty to file a statutory appeal. Conclusion: The court allowed the petitions challenging assessment orders for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, dismissing the petition for 2013-2014 with an option to appeal. The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed without costs.
|
