2024 (2) TMI 952 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Assessment orders upheld as Section 27 TNVAT limitation applies only after prior assessment or deemed assessment exists

HC dismissed writ petitions challenging assessment order on limitation grounds under Section 27 TNVAT 2006. Court held limitation under Section 27 applies ... Validity of assessment order - challenge on the ground of time limitation - last date for reopening the assessment under Section 27 TNVAT, 2006 would have expired or not - no deemed assessment - HELD THAT:- There is no justification in the challenge to the impugned assessment order on the ground of limitation under section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - The limitation under section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 will apply only in case where there is an escaped assessment after an assessment order was passed earlier where there is a deemed assessment under Section 22 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Whether the returns filed were incomplete or incorrect can be determined only by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, there cannot be a determination of the disputed facts in a summary proceedings before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The limitation under section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 will apply only where there is a deemed assessment strictly in accordance with section 22 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. There is no merits in these present writ petitions. They are therefore liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Validity of reopening assessments beyond the limitation period under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, 2006.2. Applicability of 'deemed assessment' under Section 22(2) of the TNVAT Act, 2006.3. Accuracy and completeness of returns filed by the deceased assesse.4. Jurisdiction of the impugned orders.Summary:Validity of Reopening Assessments Beyond Limitation Period:The petitioner argued that the reopening of assessments for the years 2008-09 to 2011-12 was beyond the limitation period specified under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, 2006. It was contended that the last date for reopening the assessment for the years 2008-09 to 2010-11 was 30.06.2018 and for the year 2011-12 was 31.10.2018. The notices were issued only on 29.07.2020 and 28.11.2020, which was beyond the permissible period.Applicability of 'Deemed Assessment':The petitioner claimed that due to the 5th Amendment of Act 23/2012 effective from 19.06.2012, there was a 'deemed assessment' under Section 22(2) of the TNVAT Act, 2006. Thus, the reopening of assessments should have adhered to the limitation period. The respondent countered that the deemed assessment does not apply as the returns filed were incorrect and incomplete, which negates the deemed assessment under Section 22(2).Accuracy and Completeness of Returns:The respondent argued that the deceased assesse had filed incorrect and incomplete returns, and in some periods, no returns were filed at all. Therefore, the deemed assessment under Section 22(2) was not applicable. The assessment was conducted under Section 22(4) and Section 25 of the TNVAT Act, 2006, which allows for assessment to the best of the judgment by the Assessing Authority when returns are incomplete or incorrect.Jurisdiction of the Impugned Orders:The petitioner submitted that the impugned orders were passed without jurisdiction as they were based on incorrect premises. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on various judicial precedents to argue that the orders should be set aside. However, the court found no justification in the challenge to the impugned assessment order on the ground of limitation under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, 2006, as the limitation applies only where there is a deemed assessment strictly in accordance with Section 22(2).Conclusion:The court concluded that there was no merit in the writ petitions and dismissed them. It was held that the limitation under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, 2006, applies only in cases of deemed assessment, which was not applicable here due to the incorrect and incomplete returns filed by the assesse. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed with no costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.