https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357202 Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 cannot be used to withdraw a dealer's valid compounding option merely because turnover was wrongly reported, where the audited accounts showed actual turnover below the statutory threshold and there was no suppression of sales or purchases. The Madras High Court accepted that the provision is meant to address escaped turnover or wrong assessment, not to unsettle a properly exercised compounding election. It also upheld consideration of audited material produced at the appellate stage, finding that Section 63(2) did not bar its acceptance when the document was genuine and no adverse finding had been recorded. The revised assessment was therefore unsustainable. en-us Tue, 30 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Mar 2018 08:43:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357202 Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 cannot be used to withdraw a dealer's valid compounding option merely because turnover was wrongly reported, where the audited accounts showed actual turnover below the statutory threshold and there was no suppression of sales or purchases. The Madras High Court accepted that the provision is meant to address escaped turnover or wrong assessment, not to unsettle a properly exercised compounding election. It also upheld consideration of audited material produced at the appellate stage, finding that Section 63(2) did not bar its acceptance when the document was genuine and no adverse finding had been recorded. The revised assessment was therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 30 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357202