Disputed invoices and delivery records led to remand for fresh reconsideration of compounding fee under VAT law.

Disputed discrepancies in invoices and delivery documents relating to movement of timber under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 justified fresh consideration where the revisional authority had not fully examined the petitioner's materials. The record showed inconsistencies in dates and values for the same alleged transaction, creating unresolved factual issues that warranted a further opportunity to place all documents and written submissions before the authority. The High Court therefore quashed the impugned order levying compounding fee and dismissing the revision, and remanded the matter for reconsideration on merits after hearing the petitioner.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned order levying compounding fee and dismissing the revision required interference and remand in view of disputed questions of fact and incomplete consideration of the petitioner's documents.

Analysis: The petitioner challenged the demand and compounding fee imposed in relation to movement of timber under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and the revision dismissed under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007. The material on record showed inconsistencies in the invoices and delivery documents relied upon by the petitioner, including different dates and values for the same alleged transaction. Those discrepancies raised factual issues that had not been fully placed before or examined by the revisional authority. In these circumstances, the Court found it appropriate to afford the petitioner a further opportunity to produce all documents and written submissions for reconsideration on merits.

Conclusion: The impugned order was quashed and the matter was sent back to the revisional authority for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner.

---