Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the reassessment initiated by invoking Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 was legally sustainable, and whether the consequential revised assessment orders could be upheld.
Analysis: The notice issued for reopening referred to Section 84, which is confined to correction of clerical and arithmetical mistakes, while the material placed before the Authority showed that the exercise was one of reassessment. The reopening power, if at all available, had to be exercised under Section 27(1) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, with disclosure of the specific statutory basis for treating the turnover as escaped assessment or assessable at a different rate. The notice did not clearly set out such a proposal, and the objections based on exemption entries and governmental circulars were not dealt with by a reasoned speaking order. On the record, the attempt to reopen the assessment was therefore procedurally and legally unsustainable.
Conclusion: The reopening and the consequential assessment orders were illegal and could not be sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment must be initiated under the specific statutory power that authorises it, and a notice that invokes a provision confined to rectification cannot sustain a reopening exercise without a clear and reasoned statutory basis.