Erroneous return entries do not sustain CST liability where taxable inter-state sales are unproved and reassessment remains open.

A mistaken interchange of turnover entries between TNVAT and CST returns did not, by itself, justify confirmation of CST liability where the record did not show taxable inter-state sales. The assessing authority was not barred by the pendency of a revision request under Section 84 from examining unpaid tax liability under Section 22(6a). The assessment was therefore set aside and remitted for fresh consideration on whether the petitioner was entitled to revision and whether the proceedings should be dropped if no inter-state sales were proved.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessment order confirming CST liability based on erroneous return entries could be sustained, and whether the assessing authority could examine the matter under Section 22(6a) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 notwithstanding the petitioner's request for revision under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.

Analysis: The return figures filed under the TNVAT regime and the CST regime were found to have been interchanged by mistake. The TNVAT returns reflected the turnover and self-assessed tax liability, while the CST returns did not disclose any taxable inter-state sales. The record did not substantiate that the petitioner had in fact effected inter-state sales. In those circumstances, the existence of an application under Section 84 did not prevent the assessing authority from examining whether any tax remained unpaid under Section 22(6a). The assessment therefore required fresh consideration on the question whether the petitioner was entitled to revision and whether the proceeding should be dropped if no inter-state sales existed.

Conclusion: The assessment order was set aside and the matter was remitted for reconsideration. The petitioner succeeded to the extent of obtaining a remand and an opportunity to contest the demand, while the respondent was directed to examine the claim under Section 22(6a) and drop the proceedings if no inter-state sales were proved.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed in part by quashing the impugned assessment and sending the matter back for fresh decision on the petitioner's entitlement to revision and the existence of any taxable inter-state sales.

Ratio Decidendi: A mistaken interchange of turnover entries in returns does not by itself sustain a tax demand where the record does not show taxable inter-state sales, and the assessing authority may still examine the matter under the relevant revisional/verification power before confirming liability.

---