TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 888
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....espondent pursuant to the rejection of the Rectification Petitions filed by the petitioner under Section 84(1) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. 3.The impugned Auction Notice pertains to the assessment years 2007-08 to 2011-12. As seen from the impugned Auction Notice, the tax and penalty liability of the petitioner is Rs.6,54,19,720/- (Rupees six crores fifty four lakhs nineteen thousand seven hundred and twenty only). The properties are brought for auction for non payment of the said sum by the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the impugned Auction Notice on the following grounds: a)According to the petitioner, the respondents, by total nonapplication of mind and by not adhering to the principles of natural ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on, namely Section 19(11) was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner has filed petitions under Section 84(1) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 in the year 2018 and therefore, there is no delay on the part of the petitioner. 4.Heard Mr.K.K.Senthilvelan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.K.Vasantha Mala, learned Government Advocate, who accepts notice on behalf of the first respondent. 5.Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the impugned Auction Notice dated 07.02.2023 as well as the order dated 13.01.2020 passed by the first respondent under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. He would submit that no reasons have been given in the order dated 13.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent would submit that the assessment orders pertain to years 2007-08 to 2011-12 and that earlier the very same petitioner had filed a Writ Petition in W.P. No.6309 of 2017 before this Court in the year 2017 and in the said writ petition, a conditional order was passed and the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- before the first respondent. She would submit that the sum of Rs.30,00,000/- was also not paid by the petitioner and thereafter, the above said writ petition came to be dismissed. She would also submit that the Rectification Petitions under Section 84(1) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 pertaining to the assessment years 2007-08 to 2011....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lapse of five years from the date of the assessment orders, the petitioner has filed the Rectification Petitions; c)The petitioner has not complied with the conditional order passed by this Court in the year 2017 in W.P. No.6309 of 2017 filed by the very same petitioner by paying a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- to the first respondent; d)The challenge was made only to the provisions of Section 19(11) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, which is the provision dealing with reversal of input tax credit. e)No stay of the assessment orders pertaining to different assessment years than the assessment years for which this writ petition is filed was granted by this Court in the writ petitions filed by the petitioner in W....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any such rectification has the effect of enhancing an assessment or penalty, the assessing authority shall give the dealer a revised notice of assessment or penalty and thereupon the provisions of this Act and the Rules made thereunder shall apply as if such notice had been given in the first instance. (4)The powers under sub-section (1) may be exercised by the assessing authorities even though the original order of assessment, if any, passed in the matter has been the subject matter of an appeal or revision. (5)The provisions of this Act relating to appeal and revision shall apply to an order or rectification made under this Section as they apply to the order in respect of which such order of rectification has been made.&....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ranted, which cannot be accepted by this Court as the discretion to grant personal hearing is vested only with the authority. When Section 84 makes it clear that only in cases where there is a revision of assessment made by the authority while deciding a petition under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, there is a requirement for granting personal hearing to the petitioner, the petitioner cannot now contend that the first respondent will have to grant personal hearing to the petitioner also for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2011-12. There is an inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner to file the Rectification Petitions under Section 84(1) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. 16.Admittedly, only after....