Case Law Details
Supreme Trading House Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court)
Conclusion: In present facts of the case the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Madras High Court while allowing the writ appeals have provided one more opportunity to the main petitioners to make the reconciliation of which Assessing Officer make take note of it and complete the assessment.
Facts: The writ petitions were filed by the appellant challenging the Assessment Order under the provisions of the TNVAT for the Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2015-16. The writ petitions were dismissed on the ground that the petitioner have been dragging on the matter and the petitioner was unable to do the reconciliation and to reconcile the errors pointed out by the Department. Therefore, Petitioners filed Writ Appeals before the Division Bench.
It was observed that the allegations against the appellant is suppression of turnover. The appellant was issued notice dated 07.12.2016, and stating that no reply or objections were filed till 30.12.2016, the proposal was confirmed and the reassessment was completed. This was put to challenge in W.P.Nos.3951 to 3956 of 2017. The Court found that there has been violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as show cause notice was not received on time and accordingly, the writ petitions were disposed by the direction that if the appellant had sought for copies of documents or records which were taken away during the inspection, the same have to be provided where ever permissible and viable. Pursuant to the said order, the respondent officer had issued notices but adjournments were sought by the Petitioners.
It was further observed that the respondent had granted reasonable time to the appellant and the appellant had sought for adjournment on more than three occasions. But their contention is that the reconciliation would take certain time and they are required to explain to the Assessing Officer by comparing the slips along with the ledger. This according to them is a very cumbersome process, more particularly, when the assessment is for six years. When the writ petitions were entertained, it appears that the respondent was directed by the Court not to initiate any coercive action, not in written orders, but by making certain oral observations. Thus, the assessments have been kept pending since October, 2020. The writ petitions have now been dismissed by the impugned order and no liberty had been granted to the petitioner to file an appeal.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
