9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 1287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed Tax Act, 2006, [for brevity, ?the Act?], for the assessment years 2010-2011 to 2014-2015, have been listed along with the appeals. 2.Apart from that, W.P.(MD)Nos. 9820 of 2017 to 9823 of 2017, have also been tagged in this batch, as these writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner dealer, challenging the demand notices issued by the Assessment Officer for the assessment years 2011-2012 to 2014-2015. Since, the petitioner had obtained an order of interim stay for the assessment year 2010-2011, no demand notice has been issued to the petitioner. 3.The petitioner is a registered dealer on the file of the respondent, under the provisions of the Act, dealing in house-hold articles, and it is a super market. It may not be necessary for us to go into the amount of the total and taxable turn over reported by the dealer for all the assessment orders, except to note that the dealer has filed his returns within the time permitted under the provisions of the Act. 4.The respondent Assessing Officer, on perusal of the returns filed by the petitioner dealer for the relevant assessment years and upon verification of the Annexure II of the other end dealers, opined that the returns furn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that of the other end dealers in Annexure II. This very issue was considered by one of us (T.S.S,J.) in the case of JKM Graphics Solutions Private Limited Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Vepery Assessment Circle, Chennai reported in (2017) 99 VST 343 (Mad). 8.In the said batch of cases, the question arose as to how such revision of assessment could be made when there is inconsistency or discrepancy between Annexure I and II, when the Assessing Officer gathers information from the official website of the Commercial Tax Department. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the operative portion of the order. "...53. The position under the TNVAT Act is no different after the recent amendment by Tamil Nadu Act, 2015, with effect from January 29,2016, by which the words ?tax paid or payable? occuring in section 19(1) was substituted with the word ?tax paid? and a proviso was inserted under subsection (I) of section 19. As mentioned above, all these cases pertained to orders passed prior to the amendment, I.e., before Jaunary 29,2016. It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that the expression used in section 19(1) of the TNVAT Act is tax paid or payable under the Act and if th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w the circular resulting in several assessments being set aside by the court and remanded for denova consideration. Thus, this court is fully convinced that the procedure adopted by the respondent, assessing officers in all these cases are half baked attempts, which have not yielded results and these cases are before this court or before the appellate authorities and all that the assessing officers can record is that they have issued show-cause notices or passed orders reversing the input-tax credit with no appreciable impact on the revenue collection. 56.The procedure adopted under the Maharashtra VAT Act appears to be a more reasonable procedure, the Rules have been so designed to constitute independent authorities, who will in exercise jurisdiction to dispose of the objections, etc. However, this court cannot legislate nor direct the State to legislate in a particular passion and it is for the state to bring about and appropriate rules and set procedures so that when discrepancy is noted while comparing the return with that of the figures available with the Department in their web portal, there should be an exercise carried out by the Department within its level before calling ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Meena, Proprietor of Jai Vishal Traders Vs. The Commercial Tax Officer, Kovilpatti- II, Tuticorin District reported in W.A.(MD)No.109 of 2017 dated 06.06.2017. 10.Admittedly, the Assessing Officer did not follow the procedure which was directed to be adhered to in the said decision. This would be sufficient to hold that the petitioner had no effective opportunity to put forth his objection as the Pre-Assessment Notice was bereft of particulars. Consequently, the impugned Assessment Orders are flawed. 11.The second mistake committed by the Assessing Officer is, not affording an opportunity of personal hearing. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Tvl. SRC Projects Private Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes reported in 33 VST 333, has held that when request is made for a personal hearing, the Assessing Officer is bound to afford such an opportunity. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer has admitted that the dealer has submitted his reply along with copies of purchase invoices but has ignored to note the specific request for personal hearing. This error would vitiate the impugned Assessment Order. 12.Thus, on the above two grounds, we are of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
