Best judgment assessment blocked by deemed self-assessment rules and failure to await the required Form WW report.

Best judgment assessment under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act could not be initiated before the date on which a self-assessment is statutorily deemed to crystallize, because proceedings under Section 22(4) arise only after that deemed assessment date. The court also noted that where the dealer's turnover exceeded the prescribed limit, the Form WW report was a relevant statutory precondition and assessment action could not validly proceed without awaiting it. On those grounds, the impugned assessment order was quashed, the matter was remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law, and the consequential bank attachment ceased to survive.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the initiation of best judgment assessment under Section 22(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act before 31.10.2016 was premature in a case of deemed self-assessment. (ii) Whether the assessment could proceed without waiting for the Form WW report where the turnover exceeded the prescribed limit.

Issue (i): Whether the initiation of best judgment assessment under Section 22(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act before 31.10.2016 was premature in a case of deemed self-assessment.

Analysis: The dealer had filed returns on self-assessment basis under Section 22 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, and was deemed to have been assessed on 31.10.2016. The notice proposing action under Section 22(4) was issued in August 2016, before the statutory cutoff date. Since the power to proceed under Section 22(4) could arise only after the deemed assessment date, the initiation of proceedings was contrary to the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The initiation of best judgment assessment was premature and unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment could proceed without waiting for the Form WW report where the turnover exceeded the prescribed limit.

Analysis: The turnover of the dealer exceeded forty crores, making the Form WW report relevant. The due date for filing that report was 31.12.2016, and the report had been filed by that date. Action taken before waiting for the report could not be justified on the materials available to the assessing authority.

Conclusion: The assessment could not validly proceed without awaiting the Form WW report.

Final Conclusion: The impugned assessment order was quashed, the matter was remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law, and the consequential bank attachment ceased to survive.

Ratio Decidendi: Where self-assessment is statutorily deemed to crystallize on a fixed date, proceedings for best judgment assessment cannot be initiated before that date, and statutory preconditions such as consideration of a required report must be satisfied before adverse assessment action is taken.

---