Tvl. South India Engineering Corporation Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court)
Conclusion: Sales tax authority should de novo do revision/reassessment under Section 27 of TNVAT Act by considering the objections of assessee-dealer and made an order as expeditiously as possible.
Held: Assessee contended that impugned orders which had been made under Section 27 of ‘Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 had been made on the basis that writ petitioner had not sent objections whereas, assessee had sent their reply which had been placed before this Court as part of case file and moreover, impugned orders had been made more than 3 years from the date of original notice. In any event, it had been made more than 11/2 years post last of the objections. It was held that the orders were set aside solely on the ground that it proceed on the basis that assessee-dealer had not filed objections, whereas objections in fact had been filed and the same had been duly acknowledged by respondent. The respondent should de novo do revision/reassessment under Section 27 of TNVAT Act by considering the objections of writ petitioner/dealer and made an order as expeditiously as possible i.e., as expeditiously as the official business of respondent would permit and in any event, within three weeks from today i.e., on or before 27.10.2021. De novo order i.e., revision/reassessment order made in the aforesaid manner should be duly communicated to assessee under due acknowledgement within five working days from the date of the order. Second point urged by assessee regarding the time taken for making impugned orders pales into insignificance.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER of MADRAS HIGH COURT
This common order will govern the captioned writ petitions and ‘writ miscellaneous petitions’ [hereinafter ‘WMPs’ in plural and ‘WMP’ in singular for the sake brevity of convenience and clarity] therein.
2. Mr. R.Senniappan, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner in both captioned writ petitions and Ms.Amirta Dinakaran, learned Revenue counsel who accepts notice on behalf of lone respondent in both captioned writ petitions are before this Court, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, the captioned writ petitions are taken up as the entire matter turns on a very narrow compass and acute legal angle.
3. Notwithstanding very many averments made and grounds raised in the writ affidavit, learned counsel for writ petitioner, submits that owing to the captioned matter being in writ jurisdiction, he would make pointed submissions and projected the following two points:
(a) Impugned orders which have been made under Section 27 of ‘Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (Tamil Nadu Act No.32 of 2006)’ [hereinafter ‘TNVAT’ for the sake of convenience and clarity] have been made on the basis that writ petitioner has not sent objections whereas, writ petitioner has sent their reply which have been placed before this Court as part of case file. Learned counsel also points out that the replies have the acknowledgment of respondent;
(b) Impugned orders have been made more than 3 years from the date of original notice. In any event, it has been made more than 11/2 years post last of the objections;
4. Learned Revenue counsel submits that in any proceedings under Section 27 of TNVAT Act, the respondent would certainly look into the entire file before making the assessment order. However, in the instant case, the impugned orders read as follows:
