Dismissal of Writ Petition over Delay in Tax Assessment Process; Court Directs Payment

The Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the impugned order under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for the assessment year 2011-12 due to delay. The petitioner was given an opportunity to approach the Assessing Officer despite the delay. A significant discrepancy in reported purchase turnover led to reassessment and attachment of the petitioner's bank account. The Court directed the petitioner to pay 15% of the tax demanded within three weeks, allowing for objections and a reassessment process. Failure to comply would result in dismissal of the petition and initiation of recovery proceedings by the respondent.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to impugned order under Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for assessment year 2011-12; Delay in filing writ petition; Opportunity for petitioner to approach Assessing Officer; Discrepancy in reported purchase turnover; Reassessment based on mismatch of details; Attachment of petitioner's bank account; Condition for petitioner to pay 15% of tax demanded.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 09. 2. 2015 under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for the assessment year 2011-12. The respondent argued that the petition should be dismissed due to delay as the limitation period for appeal remedy had expired. The petitioner's Senior Counsel requested an opportunity to go before the Assessing Officer despite the delay.

The assessment for the year 2011-12 revealed a significant discrepancy in the reported purchase turnover by the petitioner. While the petitioner reported a turnover of &8377; 9,08,346, the Department found purchases amounting to &8377; 52,90,564 through verification of sales details. The respondent sought to reopen the assessment and tax the petitioner at 14.5% on the estimated sale value due to the purchase turnover exceeding &8377; 50 lakhs.

Despite receiving a revision notice and attachment of the petitioner's bank account, the petitioner failed to respond or file objections. The Court noted that the reassessment was based on a mismatch of details from selling dealers' reports on the Departmental website. Consequently, the Court granted the petitioner one opportunity to comply with a condition.

The writ petition was disposed of with a direction for the petitioner to pay 15% of the tax demanded within three weeks. Upon compliance, the petitioner could treat the impugned order as a show cause notice and submit objections within two weeks. The respondent would then provide a personal hearing and redo the assessment. Failure to comply would result in dismissal of the petition, allowing the respondent to initiate recovery proceedings. Compliance would stay the demand for balance tax until fresh orders were passed. No costs were awarded, and the connected WMP was closed.

---