2021 (1) TMI 1051 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Writ appeal dismissed for failure to establish grounds for interference with assessment order.

J. Tezoram Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT), The Branch Manager

J. Tezoram Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT), The Branch Manager - TMI Issues Involved:Challenge to assessment order under Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for the assessment year 2014-15 based on ownership of business, service of notice, liability for tax arrears, jurisdiction of writ petition, and grounds for interference with the order.Detailed Analysis:Challenge to Assessment Order:The appellant challenged the assessment order dated 10.09.2015 under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for the assessment year 2014-15, claiming not to be the proprietor of the business in question, M/s.Rajaram Lamp House, stating that his father was running the business. The appellant argued that he was not served with any notice before the assessment order was passed, alleging a violation of natural justice principles. The appellant contended that since his father had closed down the business in 2015 and cleared the arrears of tax, the assessment order should be quashed.Ownership of Business and Liability for Tax Arrears:The Department, in response, argued that the appellant was involved in the business and present during the inspection, disputing the appellant's claim that the business was closed down by his father. The Department asserted that the appellant was carrying on the business along with his father and was jointly and severally liable to pay the tax arrears. The Department claimed to have served demand notices and argued that the appellant's contentions were unsustainable.Service of Notice and Jurisdiction of Writ Petition:The Writ Court examined the service of the assessment order and found that it was refused at one address, concluding that the notice was served correctly. The Court directed an inspection of the business premises, which revealed that the appellant was still operating the business, contradicting his claims of closure. The Court dismissed the writ petition due to unexplained delays and false submissions by the appellant.Grounds for Interference with the Order:The appellant, in the appeal, reiterated arguments made in the Writ Court, emphasizing that he should not be held liable for the tax arrears. The Court noted that the appellant's claims were found to be false, as evidenced by the inspection report showing business activity at the premises. The Court found no justifiable grounds to interfere with the Writ Court's order, ultimately dismissing the appeal.Conclusion:The Court dismissed the writ appeal, highlighting that the appellant failed to provide sufficient grounds for interference with the order. The Court suggested the appellant clear the tax arrears, but the appellant's counsel did not have instructions on this matter. The Court upheld the findings of the Writ Court regarding the service of notice, business operation, and liability for tax arrears, leading to the dismissal of the appeal without costs.