https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357116 Penalty under section 27(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 was not sustainable where the dealer had already reversed and paid the disputed input tax credit before final reassessment. The returns had earlier been accepted as deemed assessment, and although an audit detected defects and a revision notice was issued, the tax demand stood discharged before reassessment was completed. On those facts, no surviving tax liability remained for determination under section 27(2), and the factual basis for penalty was removed. The Madras HC therefore held that the revision petitions succeeded in favour of the assessee. en-us Wed, 28 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Nov 2018 11:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357116 Penalty under section 27(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 was not sustainable where the dealer had already reversed and paid the disputed input tax credit before final reassessment. The returns had earlier been accepted as deemed assessment, and although an audit detected defects and a revision notice was issued, the tax demand stood discharged before reassessment was completed. On those facts, no surviving tax liability remained for determination under section 27(2), and the factual basis for penalty was removed. The Madras HC therefore held that the revision petitions succeeded in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 28 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357116