Dealer must remit taxes with interest within 2 weeks to benefit from rectification process under .

Tvl. G.K. Power Expertise Private Limited, Rep. By its Director Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST) FAC, The Deputy Commissioner (ST) FAC, O/o. The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Cuddalore.

Tvl. G.K. Power Expertise Private Limited, Rep. By its Director Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST) FAC, The Deputy Commissioner (ST) FAC, O/o. The ... Issues involved: Challenge to assessment proceedings u/s Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for the period 2010-2014.

Details of the judgment:

Assessment Proceedings and Objections:
The petitioner, a dealer, challenged the assessment proceedings initiated by the Assistant Commissioner, Vridhachalam Assessment Circle, regarding modifications to the turnover for the years 2010-2014. The petitioner filed objections stating that certain purchases were not for sale but for their own use, hence no input tax credit was claimed. The assessment orders were passed without affording a personal hearing, imposing tax on all purchases and levying penalties.

Representation and Revised Returns:
Upon receiving the assessment orders, the petitioner made a representation reiterating that the purchases were for fixed assets necessary for service orders and not for reporting. They also submitted revised returns with VAT reconciliation sheets, pointing out unreported export sales and purchases. The petitioner sought re-assessment and waiver of demands due to the equal addition made in the assessment orders.

Representation and Compliance:
The petitioner requested re-assessment due to lack of a personal hearing during the assessment proceedings and offered additional income not captured in the original returns. However, the assessing authority stated that no revised returns were received as required u/s 22(6) of the Act. The petitioner's representation lacked evidence of tax payment on the enhanced turnover, which is a requirement under the proviso to Section 22(6) of the Act.

Court Directions:
Considering the substantial delay from the original proceedings in 2014 to the present, the court issued directions for the petitioner to remit taxes on the omitted turnover along with interest within two weeks. If the taxes are remitted, the objections filed in 2014 will be treated as an application for rectification under Section 84 of the Act and disposed of within four weeks. Failure to remit taxes within the specified time will render the second direction inapplicable.

Conclusion:
The court disposed of the writ petitions, directing the petitioner to comply with the tax remittance and further proceedings. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.