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 sets aside assessment orders under Tamil Nadu VAT Act for reevaluation, directs fresh assessments within 8 weeks.</h1> <h3>SD Packers Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT)</h3> The Court allowed the writ petitions challenging assessment orders under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act for the years 2007-08 to 2014-15. The Court ... Validity of assessment order - Liability of cross verification of the annexures of the buyer and the seller in the intranet website of the Department - Levy of tax on payment of excise duty and penalty thereon on the same - Held that: - it is seen that the respondent referred to the document and the details furnished by the petitioner, but curiously enough confirmed the proposal by stating that the monthly returns filed by the other end dealer are not only sufficient proof to authenticate the purchase and sale transaction and that the genuineness and correctness could be proved by furnishing original purchase and sales bill, payment made for the transaction by bank statement, transportation details, loading and unloading charges paid to the cooly, stock register extract, delivery challans received and issued reconciling the stock register, etc. - t this juncture, this Court would point out that the above observations made by the respondent in the impugned assessment orders, were not forming part of the pre-revision notice. In other words, these details were not called for from the petitioner while issuing the pre-revision notice. Therefore, if the respondent had any doubts with regard to the documents produced by the petitioner or the details furnished by them or if, in his opinion, they are insufficient, the Assessing Officer should have issued a notice to the dealer and called upon them to produce the documents. However, completing the assessments on the above lines is wholly unreasonable and arbitrary. Therefore, finding on the said issue calls for interference. Matters are remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration - petition allowed by way of remand. Issues Involved:Challenge to assessment orders under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act for the years 2007-08 to 2014-15, involving the levy of tax on excise duty payments and penalties, and the liability of cross verification of buyer and seller annexures on the intranet website of the Department.Analysis:Levy of Tax on Excise Duty and Penalty:The petitioner, a dealer manufacturing wooden crates and boxes for auto industries, challenged assessment orders for various years, disputing the levy of tax on excise duty payments. The petitioner objected to the lack of details provided in the notice regarding the mismatch between buyer and seller annexures, requesting specific information to address the issue effectively. Despite the petitioner's submissions, the Assessing Officer did not address the central excise duty issue in the assessments. The Government Advocate argued that since the remittance of central excise duty was not disputed, the petitioner should be liable to pay tax. However, the Court refrained from making a definitive ruling on this issue, leaving it for the respondent to consider further.Liability of Cross Verification:The assessments also raised concerns about the liability of cross verification of buyer and seller annexures. The respondent confirmed the proposal based on monthly returns filed by the seller but failed to call for additional documents or details from the petitioner during the pre-revision notice stage. The Court criticized this approach as unreasonable and arbitrary, emphasizing that if doubts existed regarding the documents provided, the Assessing Officer should have issued a notice for further clarification. Consequently, the Court found the assessment on this issue to be unjust and ordered interference.Final Judgment:In light of the above issues, the Court allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the impugned assessment orders, and remanded the matters back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The respondent was directed to thoroughly review the entire issue, request additional particulars from the petitioner, and conduct assessments in compliance with the law within eight weeks. The judgment concluded by closing the related Writ Miscellaneous Petitions without imposing any costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
