Court Upholds VAT Assessment Order, Emphasizes Appellate Remedy

The court declined to interfere with the assessment order challenged by a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006 for the year 2013-14. Despite the petitioner's arguments against the assessment method and penalty imposition, the court emphasized the failure to respond to the Revision Notice, indicating no objection. The court highlighted the petitioner's failure to avail the appellate remedy and advised pursuing the appeal process rather than invoking constitutional provisions prematurely. The petitioner was granted time to file an appeal within thirty days, with liberty to entertain the appeal beyond the statutory limitation period.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order under Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006 for the year 2013-14. Failure to respond to Revision Notice leading to assessment without objections. Justification for non-interference with impugned order and direction to avail appellate remedy.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered dealer, challenged the revision of assessment for the year 2013-14 under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006. The petitioner's counsel argued against the use of 'best judgment assessment' due to non-filing of Form-WW, emphasizing the Assessing Officer's failure to review accounts and returns. Additionally, the imposition of a penalty was deemed unwarranted. A counter affidavit by the respondent supported the assessment order. However, the court refrained from delving into the assessment's merits as the petitioner failed to respond to the Revision Notice, indicating no objection. Despite being a significant dealer in petrol, diesel, and lubricants, the petitioner did not provide reasons for the lack of response. The court noted the absence of grounds for bypassing the appellate remedy and questioned the invocation of Article 226 of the Constitution of India without exhausting the appeal process.

The court clarified that the issue was not a breach of natural justice but deliberate non-availing of the opportunity by the petitioner. Sufficient time was available to submit objections before the assessment order, yet the challenge was raised after a considerable delay. Consequently, the court declined to interfere with the impugned order at that stage, advising the petitioner to pursue the appeal remedy as per the statute. Acknowledging the pending writ petition and the initial interim stay, the court granted time for the petitioner to file an appeal within thirty days from the receipt of the order. The dismissal of the writ petition was accompanied by liberty granted to file an appeal before the appellate authority, allowing the appeal to be entertained irrespective of the statutory limitation period. No costs were imposed, and the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition was closed.

---