AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (6) TMI 1055
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of law as per the amendment under Section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, there was deemed assessment under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It is submitted that the impugned orders were (passed) without any jurisdiction. This aspect was also considered by this Court vide its order dated 13.01.2017 while granting interim relief to the petitioner by restraining the respondent from proceeding further with the recovery proceedings. 4. It was submitted that the impugned orders are without jurisdiction in view of the amendment under proviso Section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 with effect from dated 19.06.2012. Therefore, these orders are liable to be quashed while giving liberty to the respondent to initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioner to recover the tax that may have escaped assessment in accordance with law. 5. It is the contention of the petitioner that the impugned orders dated 15.11.2016 & 08.12.2016 have been passed pursuant to the notices dated 28.12.2011 and 19.11.2014 for the Assessment Years 2008-2009 & 2009-2010. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there was a fire a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in I.T.C Ltd. Vs Superintendent of Commercial Taxes and others, (119) STC 530, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that notices are mandatory and cannot be waived. 12. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that if an order cannot be passed based on a fresh notice to be issued, henceforth, no useful purpose will have to be asking the respondent to issue fresh notice and pass fresh speaking order. 13. The learned counsel also referred to the decision of this Court in Sri Ganea Vs The State Tax Officer, Krishnagiri in W.P.No.30725 of 2019, wherein, this Court by an order dated 04.08.2000, has concluded that the limitation prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, would apply to the assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1944. 14. There, the Assessment Orders came to be passed pursuant to a notice dated 14.03.1980 and the limitation for issuing the said notice expired on 31.03.1980. The Assessment Orders were set aside by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), by directing the Deputy Commercial Taxes ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thority quotes or misquotes one or the other of the above two sections while imposing the penalty, the order itself if vitiated, erroneous and ineffective in the eye of law. 9. ................. If an authority has the necessary power and particularly statutory power to deal with the subject and pass necessary orders which is only a faculty to decide legally, justly and truly, then an erroneous invitation to or quotation of a wrong provision of law in the notice whereunder the proceedings are initiated does not matter at all. It is the substance that matters and not the form." 20. The learned Government Advocate for the respondent also submits that the demand in the impugned orders are on account of failure of the petitioner to furnish Form-C on the Inter-State sale effected by the petitioner and even after the records of the petitioner will lost during the relevant Assessment Years in a fire accident on 13.08.2012 and subsequently during the ravishing flood in December 2015, it was open for the petitioner to procure duplicate and counterfoil copies of Form-C from whom the Inter-State sales were effected under Section 8(3)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 21. The learne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ade by him without the production of the declaration referred to under clause (a) of sub-section (4) noted above. 13. ............ 14. We are of the view that Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Sales Tax (Karnataka) Rules, 1957 which provides for furnishing of the original C Form in order to claim the concessional rate of tax is consistent with the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act and there is no conflict between the provisions of Rules 12(2) and (3) of the Central Sales Tax Rules and Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Sales Tax (Karnataka) Rules, 1957 as contended by the appellant. Rule 12 of the Rules is intended to prevent misuse of C Forms by unscrupulous and mischievous dealers and makes it obligatory for the dealer to furnish indemnity bond . In other words, in order to claim concessional rate of tax, the original C Form has to be attached to the return as provided under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Sales Tax (Karnataka) Rules, 1957. It is not a mere formality or technicality but it is intended to achieve the object of preventing the forms being misused for the commission of fraud and collusion with a view to evade payment of taxes. In our opinion, Rule 6(b)(ii) which is clear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the notice of assessment or reassessment to be invalid, could not direct the assessing authority to take fresh proceedings for assessment or reassessment, if the same had already become time-barred. More-over, even if such a direction is given by the appellate or revisional authority, it would not have the effect of conferring jurisdiction on the assessing authority to initiate fresh proceeding under section 12 of the Act by issuing a notice for assessment or reassessment, if the period of limitation prescribed in the aforesaid section during which such notice can be validly issued has already expired." 27. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondent. In these proceedings, the petitioner has questioned the correctness of the reassessment order dated 16.11.2016 and 08.12.2016 for the Assessment Years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 respectively. For the purpose of assessment under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 has been made applicable. 28. The provisions of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso an assessee under the provisions of the other tax enactments. 35. In the course of business, it is expected that it would have maintained records not only physically but also in demat form. Further, in the age of digitization and maintenance of electronic records and cloud computing, it is highly improbable that physical records allegedly lost either due to the fire accident on 13.08.2012 or during the flood that ravaged the City of Chennai between the last week of November 2015 and first three weeks of December 2015 cannot be retrieved. 36. Therefore, there was no excuse for the petitioner to not to file Form C. It cannot shy away from its statutory liability and responsibility to establish that the transactions in respect of which claimed concession Inter-State sale against Form C to registered dealers outside the State of Tamil Nadu and still not file the same. 37. At the same time, it is to be noticed that Section 22 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 was amended in the year 2012 with effect from 19.06.2012. As per Section 22 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, assessment in respect of a dealer shall be on the basis of return relating to turnover submit....