9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 013-14 in view of the returns filed by the petitioner's Vendor for the relevant period. 2.The petitioner who is a registered dealer on the file of the respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act) and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (CST Act) has filed this writ petition challenging an assessment order passed by the respondent under the TNVAT Act for the year 2013-14. The petitioner would stated that they are a retail chain carrying on business under the name and style "M/s.WAITROSE". During February 2014, the petitioner made outright purchase of a departmental store from M/s.Sabari Super Market Private Limited and applied for a registration under the TNVAT Act and CST Act by filing Form A on 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal in W.A.No.828 of 2015 and the Hon'ble Division Bench by judgment dated 15.02.2016 allowed the writ appeal by setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer dated 14.01.2015 and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh finding with regard to the question as to whether the appellant was issued a certificate of registration within time and as to whether the appellant was prevented from filing online returns or manual returns, as the case may be. On such remand, the Assessing Officer passed an order dated 23.12.2016 disallowing the claim of ITC and holding that the petitioner is liable to reverse the ITC claim for the year 2013-14 to the tune of Rs. 54,16,090/- and issued a demand dated 23.12.2016. This order da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atutory due in adhering to the procedure as contemplated under Rule 7(5) and Rule 21 of the Rules. The returns filed for the months of February and March 2014 on 08.09.2014 would be validated for the reason that the password was approved by the authority only on 30.06.2014. Further, the returns filed by the petitioner's predecessor, namely, M/s.Sabari Supermarket for the period February-March would reflect the entitlement of the petitioner for the input tax credit. Refusal to grant the same and imposing an order of reversal of the ITC claimed by the petitioner for the period February to March is unsustainable. The respondent ought to have examined the vital aspect that unless the password is assigned to the petitioner, they would not be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... password was assigned, the dealers had not filed returns for the months of February and March 2014 but filed it only on 18.09.2014. Thus, the submission of the respondent is that steps should have been taken by the petitioner to file the manual return and without doing so cannot now challenge the impugned order by raising untenable contentions. Further, the petitioner has been dragging the matter by approaching this Court repeatedly and resorting to remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is not meant to cut short or circumvent the statutory procedures and availment of statutory remedies. In support of such contentions, the learned Government Advocate placed reliance on the decision in the case of Assistant Collector of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bench pointed out that though there is a remedy of revision available as against an order passed under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, revisional remedy is not equivalent to an appeal remedy, more particularly, in the petitioner's case the question is whether they were given the password to enable them to file the return online only belatedly and the question as to whether the petitioner was not allowed to file manual returns which questions were not even gone into in the order passed under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act. It was further pointed out that these questions were very crucial to the decision with regard to reversal of input tax credit. Thus, it was held that there is a clear non-application of mind to a very important fact by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncy of the petitioner and other related requirements. 9.Thus, in my considered view, the delay in not adhering to the time frame for effecting registration and giving the password has caused great prejudice to the petitioner and they were unable to access the web portal of the Department for filing a online return and when such mistake lies on the Department, the petitioner should not be put to peril. The respondent is attempting to make out a case by referring to the late filing of the manual return. In my view though the registration certificate might have been despatched to the petitioner during April 2014, the petitioner was justified in seeking to file online return as the Department is insisting and compelling dealers to adopt the on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
