TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the assessment order, founded on the dealer's statement recorded during inspection and the resulting stock difference, could be sustained, and what consequential relief should follow.
Analysis: The writ petitioner was filing monthly returns under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and claimed entitlement to deemed assessment. The impugned order rejected the objections only on the basis that actual stock was compared with the accounts in the course of inspection and a difference was accepted and signed by the dealer. On that footing, the order substantially rested on the statement made before the enforcement officers. The Court applied the principle that such a statement cannot by itself form the sole basis for a best judgment assessment, and held that the matter required reconsideration.
Conclusion: The impugned order was not sustained as a final assessment and was directed to be treated as a show-cause notice, with the assessment to be redone afresh under Section 22(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 after receipt of objections and the stipulated deposit.
Final Conclusion: The writ petitioner obtained partial relief by securing a fresh assessment process, while the dispute on liability was left open for reconsideration by the assessing authority.
Ratio Decidendi: A best judgment assessment cannot rest solely on a dealer's statement given to enforcement officers, and where such a basis materially underlies the order, fresh consideration is warranted.
TaxTMI 
