High Court sets aside assessment order under Tamil Nadu VAT Act, criticizes respondent's lack of proof for non-filing claim.

The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the assessment order and rejection of the petition under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act. The court found that the petitioner had indeed filed Form W within the prescribed time limit, supported by computer-generated acknowledgments. The court criticized the respondent's ex parte assessment and lack of proof for the non-filing claim. The matter was remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration of Form W, directing compliance within eight weeks and imposing no costs.

---

---

Issues: Challenge to assessment order and rejection of petition under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act based on the timely filing of Form W.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, filed a writ petition challenging the assessment order dated 31.7.2014 and the rejection of their petition under Section 84 dated 16.3.2015.

2. The main issue at hand was whether the petitioner filed Form W within the prescribed time limit. The petitioner claimed to have filed Form W through e-filing within the stipulated time, supported by computer-generated acknowledgments.

3. Despite the petitioner's representation requesting more time after receiving a pre-assessment notice, the respondent proceeded to assess the petitioner ex parte, alleging non-filing of objections. The respondent's approach was deemed improper as they should have either accepted or rejected the adjournment request before proceeding with the assessment.

4. The petitioner's petition under Section 84 was rejected based on the respondent's assertion that Form W was not filed within the prescribed time, and no proof was provided to support the claim.

5. The respondent, through the Additional Government Pleader, argued that the assessment orders were justified as per Section 18(3) of the Act, stating that the credit would lapse to the Government if invoices and related documents were not produced within 180 days of zero-rated sales.

6. Notably, the respondent acknowledged in their response that Form W was indeed filed within the time frame by the petitioner, contradicting the basis of the impugned orders. This acknowledgment highlighted the erroneous nature of the observations in the assessment orders.

7. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned orders, and remitted the matter back to the respondent for reconsideration of Form W, which was confirmed to have been timely filed online. The respondent was directed to comply with this decision within eight weeks from the date of the order, with no costs imposed.

---