TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court partially quashes tax demand notice for certain years, upholds others under Tamil Nadu VAT Act.</h1> <h3>M/s. Noble Tech Industries Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Director, Mr. Ramesh Versus Office of the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Chennai</h3> The court partially allowed the writ petition, quashing the demand notice for assessment years 2006-07 to 2010-11 due to being time-barred. However, the ... Input tax credit for claim of burning loss - Time limitation - two separate notices issued for different assessment years, one covering for the years 2006-07 upto 2010-11 and the other covering for the years 2011-12 upto 2015-16, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a single notice has to be rejected by this Court - Section 27(1) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act 2006 - HELD THAT:- The separate notices make it clear that the first notice has been issued for the assessment years 2006-07 upto 2010-11 and the second notice has been issued for the assessment years 2011-12 upto 2015-16. Being two separate notices issued for different assessment years, one covering for the years 2006-07 upto 2010-11 and the other covering for the years 2011-12 upto 2015-16, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a single notice has to be rejected by this Court. The first notice dated 12.07.2021 for the assessment years 2006-07 upto 2010-11 is alone barred by limitation and the second notice dated 12.07.2021 issued by the respondent for the assessment years 2011-12 upto 2015-16 is not barred by limitation as the demand has been made, within a period of six years by the respondent as prescribed under Section 27(1) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act 2006. The impugned notice dated 12.07.2021 issued by the respondent for the assessment years 2006-07 upto 2010-11 is hereby quashed and insofar as the second notice is concerned, the contention of the petitioner is rejected by this Court. Admittedly, the petitioner has not challenged the assessment order passed by the respondent in respect of the assessment years 2011-12 upto 2015-16. If aggrieved by the same, the petitioner will have to challenge the same in the manner known to them under law and liberty is granted to the petitioner for challenging the said assessment order pertaining to the assessment years 2011-12 upto 2015-16. This writ petition is partly allowed. Issues:Challenge to order for input tax credit for burning loss, Limitation period for re-assessment under Section 27 of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, Separate notices for different assessment years, Quashing of demand notice for certain assessment years, Liberty granted for challenging assessment order.Analysis:Issue 1: Challenge to order for input tax credit for burning lossThe petitioner challenged an order seeking input tax credit for burning loss, which was issued by the respondent. The petitioner contended that the demand made after a period of six years is barred by limitation as per Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act.Issue 2: Limitation period for re-assessment under Section 27 of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax ActThe respondent issued two separate demand notices dated 12.07.2021 for different assessment years. The Government Advocate acknowledged that the demand for assessment years 2006-07 up to 2010-11 was time-barred under Section 27 of the Act, while the demand for assessment years 2011-12 up to 2015-16 was within the prescribed time limit of six years.Issue 3: Separate notices for different assessment yearsAlthough the notices were dated the same, they were distinct for different assessment years - one covering 2006-07 up to 2010-11 and the other covering 2011-12 up to 2015-16. The Court rejected the contention that it was a single notice, emphasizing the distinct nature of the notices.Issue 4: Quashing of demand notice for certain assessment yearsThe Court quashed the demand notice for assessment years 2006-07 up to 2010-11 as it was issued after the six-year limitation period. However, the demand notice for assessment years 2011-12 up to 2015-16 was upheld as it was within the prescribed time limit under Section 27 of the Act.Issue 5: Liberty granted for challenging assessment orderThe petitioner was granted liberty to challenge the assessment order passed by the respondent for the assessment years 2011-12 up to 2015-16 if aggrieved by the same, following the legal procedures.In conclusion, the writ petition was partly allowed, quashing the demand notice for certain assessment years while upholding it for others. The petitioner was granted liberty to challenge the assessment order for specific years.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
