Gingee Agricultural Producers Co-operative Marketing Society Limited Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) (Madras High Court)
Conclusion: Mere mentioning of a wrong value-added tax ( VAT ) Provision or non-mentioning of a provision did not invalidate an order if the court or statutory authority had the requisite jurisdiction to issue it and there was only a typographical error in the notices and they were supposed to be issued under Section 27(1)(a) of the TNVAT Act, 2006.
Held: Assessee -cooperative marketing society limited, was subjected to revised assessments for 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2011-12. The assessments were initially deemed complete under Section 22(2) of the TNVAT Act. The tax authorities revisited these assessments after a few years, issuing notices under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax (TNVAT) Act, 2006. These notices were followed by fresh notices under Section 27(1)(a), which allows the state to revise deemed assessments if unaccounted turnover or other discrepancies are discovered. The petitioner challenged revised assessment orders issued under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax (TNVAT) Act, 2006, arguing the assessments were time-barred and invalid due to incorrect citation of legal sections in notices. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the assessments were deemed complete under Section 22(2) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 and the notices for revision were issued after the six-year limitation period under Section 27(1)(a), making them invalid. Further, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the initial notices cited Section 84 instead of Section 27 of the TNVAT Act indicating a jurisdictional error. The petitioner’s counsel relied on various judgments where delayed and flawed notices were quashed. On appeal. It was held that mere typographical or procedural errors in legal notices did not invalidate them if the correct legal intent was clear and the authorities acted within their jurisdiction. This principle was backed by the Supreme Court’s Ruling in Ram Sunder Ram vs. Union of India. The notices that were issued on 23.07.2014 were also notices issued under Section 27(1)(a) of the TN VAT, Act, 2006. There was only a typographical error in the notices and they were supposed to be issued under Section 27(1)(a) of the TN VAT Act, 2006. The tenor of the notice also make it clear that they were issued for the purpose of revision of Assessment, though Section 84 of the TN VAT Act, 2006 could be invoked only to correct errors apparent face on record. The court noted that despite citing the wrong section, the notices intended to revise the assessments and levy penalties, and the revised assessments were issued within the statutory time limit, complying with the TNVAT Act’s requirements. Therefore, the court upheld the revised assessment order and the writ petition was dismissed.
