TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds rejection of rectification application under Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Act</h1> <h3>Taherali Industries and Projects (P) Ltd. Versus Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Thanjavur and Another</h3> Taherali Industries and Projects (P) Ltd. Versus Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Thanjavur and Another - [2012] 47 VST 482 (Mad) Issues:- Rectification under section 55 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 based on subsequent order permitting payment under section 7C of the TNGST Act.Analysis:The judgment pertains to a writ petition challenging the rejection of an application for rectification under section 55 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The petitioner, a registered dealer, was appointed as a sub-contractor and opted for payment of tax under section 7C of the TNGST Act. The assessing authority initially rejected this option for the assessment year 2001-02, levying tax under section 3B instead. Subsequently, for the year 2002-03, the assessing authority accepted the payment under section 7C for the same contract. The petitioner sought rectification for the earlier year based on this subsequent acceptance.The primary issue revolves around the interpretation and application of section 7C(2) of the TNGST Act, which requires the assessee to exercise the option to pay tax under section 7C(1) along with the first monthly return for the financial year. In this case, for the assessment year 2001-02, the petitioner failed to file the first monthly return within the prescribed time, thereby not exercising the option for payment under section 7C. Consequently, the assessing authority rightly rejected the petitioner's claim for payment under section 7C for that year, a decision upheld in appeal.While the petitioner's subsequent payment under section 7C for the year 2002-03 was accepted, the court emphasized that the option must be exercised timely for each financial year. The petitioner's attempt to rectify the assessment order for 2001-02 based on the subsequent year's acceptance was deemed impermissible. The court highlighted that the term 'year' in the statute is crucial, requiring the option to be exercised within the relevant assessment year to avail of the payment scheme under section 7C.Ultimately, the court found no error in the assessing authority's decision to reject the rectification application. The subsequent acceptance for the following year did not validate rectification for the earlier year, as the option must be exercised annually. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, upholding the rejection of the rectification application.
TaxTMI 