9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Commercial Taxes, Chennai, the impugned orders are set aside and respondents are directed to accept form "F" filed by the petitioner for the assessment year 2014-2015 and pass orders afresh in accordance with law. - Decided in favour of petitioner - W. P. No. 18061 of 2016, W. M. P. No. 15847 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 19-5-2016 - K. Kalyanasundaram, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. R. Senniappan For the Respondent : Mr. V. Haribabu ORDER This writ petition is filed for issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the files of the respondent in CST No. 944962/2014-15 dated 22.02.2016 and quash the same as being without jurisdiction and authority of law and contrary to the principles of natural justice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her notice fixing date for personal hearing so as to enable to obtain and produce the requisite forms in support of his claim for exemption. Though the petitioner obtained all the requisite forms in the mean time and waited for personal hearing, the respondent had passed final orders on 22.02.2016 and confirmed his proposal by levying tax , that too, on the exempted turnover and served the order on 12.04.2016 without grant of such opportunity for personal appearance which, according to the petitioner, is mandatory requirement in accordance with Section 22(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Further, according to the petitioner, in the impugned order, while levying tax at the rate of 5% on the turnover of ₹ 53,99,88,582/-, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e sales made to SEZ and pass orders afresh in accordance with law. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder: 9. ...........The facts which are not disputed in the cases on hand show that the petitioner is regularly filing their monthly returns and complying with the statutory requirements. The respondent had also accepted the turnover reported by the petitioner as correct and determined the same. However, for want of form C and form I, the respondent adopted higher rate of tax at 14.5 per cent, which in my view, cannot be sustained in view of a circular dated February 1, 2000, issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai. For better appreciation, the same is reproduced hereunder: the first original ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ken of section 8(4) is sufficient cause which appeals to the mind of the authority concerned and which enables it to allow further time without bothering about any onus on the assessees. Hence, even if the dealer fails to explain the reason for the delay, the respondent has to independently apply his mind and decide about the C forms, without insisting the onus on the assessee. 10. The abovesaid circular itself has been based on the basis of Arulmurugan's case [1982] 51 STC 381 (mad) [FB] ; CDJ 1982 MHC 132 passed by the Full Bench of this Court. Relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted below (pages 395 and 396 in 51 STC): 19. We do not think there is any room for the perplexity given expression to by the learned G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the completion of assessment. 20. We may now turn to the facts of each of the two individual references before us. In both the cases, the assessee concerned did not file C forms with the assessing authority before the completion of the assessments. Naturally, therefore, the turnovers in question were charged to tax at the rate of 10 per cent, instead of at the concessional rate of four per cent. Both the assessees appealed against their respective assessments. In both the cases, leave to file the relevant C forms was asked for, at the appellate stage. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, declined to receive the C forms, and confirmed the assessments. On further appeal before the Tribunal, the assessees produced the C forms ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and direct the assessing authority to re-do the assessment, in which event there would be no occasion for the assessing authority to go into any question of 'delay' in filing the C forms, for with the setting aside of the assessment the whole thing is once again at large. It is needless to add that whatever has been stated by us as respects the Tribunal's power and the modes of its exercise apply, mutatis mutandis, to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in like situations occurring in the appeals before him. 11. In view of the above said Full Bench judgment of this Court and also the circular dated February 1, 2000 issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
