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>High Court clarifies turnover discrepancies under Tamil Nadu VAT Act. Petitioner directed to pursue statutory appeal.</h1> <h3>Tvl Shree Shanmuga Electricals Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST)</h3> Tvl Shree Shanmuga Electricals Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST) - TMI Issues involved:Assessments under 'The Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006' for multiple years, discrepancies in turnover reported by the petitioner, incorrect claim of 'Input Tax Credit', purchase suppression, purchase and sales omission, interest component, availability of statutory appeal, consideration of alternate remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.Analysis:The judgment by the Madras High Court concerns four writ petitions related to assessments under 'The Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006'. The main issue revolves around discrepancies in turnover reported by the petitioner for different assessment years. The respondent raised concerns about the variation in numbers between the turnover reported by the petitioner in returns and that prepared by the petitioner's Auditor. The orders issued by the respondent on March 30, 2019, are challenged in these writ petitions.The respondent's orders focused on three key issues: incorrect claim of 'Input Tax Credit', purchase suppression, and purchase and sales omission. The respondent accepted the petitioner's submissions regarding 'Input Tax Credit' and purchase suppression but ruled against the petitioner concerning purchase and sales omission. Specifically, the respondent highlighted discrepancies in sales figures disclosed in the profit and loss statement, leading to a confirmed difference in sales turnover.Regarding the interest component, the petitioner contested its imposition, while the Revenue argued that interest is automatic and unavoidable. It is acknowledged that a statutory appeal lies with the Appellate Deputy Commissioner-Sales Tax (ST), Salem against the impugned orders. The court deliberated on the availability of alternate remedies and the necessity of predeposit of a percentage of the disputed amount for pursuing the statutory appeal.The court cited legal precedents emphasizing that while alternate remedy is generally a rule of discretion, exceptions exist where specific conditions are met. These exceptions include lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice principles, and the ineffectiveness of the alternate remedy. In this case, the court determined that the petitioner should pursue the available appeal remedy, given the circumstances where the respondent dropped proceedings under two issues but ruled against the petitioner on one. The court directed the petitioner to avail the appeal remedy, ensuring a fair and unbiased hearing by the Appellate Authority.In conclusion, the writ petitions were disposed of with the directive for the petitioner to pursue the appeal remedy, maintaining that the observations made in the judgment are solely for the purpose of these writ petitions. The court also allowed the petitioner to seek condonation of delay and benefit from Section 14 of the Limitation Act if necessary for filing the appeal before the Appellate Authority.
TaxTMI 