Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (6) TMI 138

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cability of rate of tax for Bitumen, Carbon Black Feed Stock (CBFS), CRMB, Hexane, all kinds of Wax, scrap and waste, etc. and particularly, when the petitioner agreed for the assessment of CBFS-LE at 12.5% as an unclassified item under Part-C of First Schedule to the TNVAT Act, the petitioner sent a letter dated 16.4.2012 to the respondent, which was followed by various reminders, last of which is dated 1.4.2013, seeking rectification of the error under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act. Thus as the petitioner has raised a grievance in their letter dated 1.4.2013, addressed to the Joint Commissioner (CT), Large Tax Payers Unit, Chennai, stating that there is error in the impugned order, dated 4.7.2012 passed by the respondent-Deputy Commissio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d and an order dated 5.3.2012 was passed by the respondent, which was received by the petitioner on 6.3.2012 and in the said assessment order dated 5.3.2012, the respondent considered various transactions during 2007-08 and finally arrived at the total turnover and taxable turnover at Rs.9691,11,28,044/- and Rs.2093,64,53,063/- respectively. The respondent considered the amount of tax due and tax paid and determined that the petitioner paid tax of Rs.1,77,20,885/- in excess of the tax due and accordingly, they issued notice to the petitioner in Form 4 for refund of Rs.1,77,20,885/-. (c) Upon perusal of the entire order, the petitioner-Company found certain errors apparent on the face of the assessment order and therefore, they filed two F .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... individually and applied the rate of tax for each of the products specified under the TNVAT Act. Therefore, the respondent committed error of not assessing these products at their respective rates instead of assessing the turnover to tax at 30%. (f) The petitioner pointed out the said glaring error to the respondent by furnishing the details of commodities sold by them with the applicable rate of tax and vide letter, dated 16.4.2012, the petitioner sought for rectification of the error under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act read with Section 9(2) of the CST Act. (g) The respondent, without referring to the request made by the petitioner for rectification, issued revised order, dated 29.6.2012, accepted Form-C Declaration for a turnover of R .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of tax. The petitioner pointed out that the individual items sold by the petitioner should be dealt with separately in the assessment order and the rate of VAT should be applied wherever the petitioner had not filed Form-C Declarations. The petitioner pointed out the excess tax of Rs.31,86,620/- charged by the respondent due to the error of grouping of commodities and also pointed out that as regards rejection of Form-H, the respondent erroneously charged 30% since the commodity involved was Sulphur which is liable to VAT at 4% only and the petitioner furnished copies of Invoices pertaining to the above transaction for value of Rs.2,12,047/- and requested for assessing the transaction to tax at 4%. (j) However, the respondent did not rec .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ng rectification of the error under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act read with Section 9(2) of the CST Act and therefore, learned counsel made a consistent plea that if the said letter dated 1.4.2013 is considered, then the grievance of the petitioner would be redressed. 6. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that the error pointed out by the petitioner is to be looked into by the respondent/assessing authority in accordance with law and the rectification sought for by the petitioner under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act read with Section 9(2) of the CST Act, has to be considered by the respondent, as there is an error in the impugned order, dated 4.7.2012. 7. In the light of the above stated position, considering .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates