2015 (6) TMI 1178 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

High Court upholds VAT penalty of Rs. 10,000, dismisses writ petitions challenging assessment orders

Tvl. Nitraa Furnitures Private Ltd., Versus Assistant Commissioner (CT)

The High Court of Madras dismissed the petitioner's writ petitions challenging assessment orders under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act. The court ... Validity of assessment order - TNVAT Act, 2006 - failure to file Form-WW - Held that:- The petitioner admits the fact that on receipt of the notice issued by the respondent, the petitioner failed to file reply within the stipulated time. Therefore, the respondent was left with no other option except to pass the final orders. Accordingly, he has proceeded to pass final orders. Consequently, as per Section 63A(2) of the Act, he has only proposed to levy a fine of ₹ 10,000/- - But the orders say that he has proposed to levy interest of ₹ 10,000/-. As there is a typographical error, this Court, while rectifying the error, made it clear that the petitioner has to pay penalty of ₹ 10,000/- under Section 63(A)(2) of the Act. There are no merits in the petition - petition dismissed. Issues: Challenge to assessment orders for failure to file Form-WW, imposition of penalty, jurisdiction of Assessing Officer.Analysis:1. Challenge to Assessment Orders: The petitioner, a furniture dealer registered under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, challenged assessment orders for the years 2012-13 and 2013-14 due to failure to file Form-WW. The petitioner argued that failure to file Form-WW does not equate to incomplete returns, citing a judgment clarifying that the Assessing Officer cannot impose filing Form-WW. However, the court noted the petitioner's admission of failing to reply to the notices within the stipulated time, leading the respondent to pass final orders. The respondent proposed a fine of Rs. 10,000 under Section 63(A)(2) of the Act, but a typographical error mentioned interest instead of a penalty. The court rectified the error, confirming the penalty of Rs. 10,000.2. Imposition of Penalty: The petitioner contended that the penalty of 2% of the reported taxable turnover was unjustified without legal authority. However, the court found no merit in this argument, emphasizing the petitioner's failure to respond to the notices within the specified timeframe. The court clarified that the penalty imposed was in accordance with Section 63(A)(2) of the Act, dismissing the petitioner's challenge against the penalty.3. Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer: The petitioner raised concerns about the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in invoking Section 22(4) of the Act, arguing that complete returns were filed properly. The court rejected this contention, emphasizing the petitioner's failure to timely respond to the notices. The court held that the Assessing Officer acted within the scope of authority by proposing a penalty under Section 63(A)(2) of the Act, ultimately dismissing the writ petitions challenging the assessment orders.In conclusion, the High Court of Madras dismissed the writ petitions filed by the petitioner, upholding the assessment orders and the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 10,000 under Section 63(A)(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act. The court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments regarding the failure to file Form-WW, the imposition of the penalty, and the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, thereby closing the connected Miscellaneous Petitions without costs.