2021 (4) TMI 597 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of assessment order - non-service of orders - change of place of business intimated to the department or not - attachment of Bank Accounts of petitioner - HELD THAT - It cannot be appreciated as to how an officer in 2020 could compare and verify a signature dated 20.06.2012 as it is very likely that there had been a wholesale change in the composition of that office in the intervening period of eight years. Thus, in a matter of this nature, the benefit of doubt should certainly be given to the petitioner. This is particularly so since there is no allegation of malpractice foisted upon the petitioner by the officer nor is such an argument. As far as the TNVAT appeals are concerned, 100% of the disputed taxes are said to have been paid and as far as CST appeals are concerned 25% of the disputed taxes are said to have been paid. The impugned order is hence set aside and directions issued to the first respondent to receive the appeals as maintainable - writ petitions are disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order returning statutory appeals as belated due to change of business address notification; Non-receipt of assessment orders leading to delayed filing of appeals; Rejection of appeals as non-maintainable based on signature verification; Benefit of doubt to be given to petitioner in signature verification issue; Setting aside of impugned order and directions for receiving appeals as maintainable; Payment status of disputed taxes in TNVAT and CST appeals; Directions for re-presentation of appeals within a specified time frame.

Analysis:
The petitioner contested the order returning statutory appeals, citing the change of business address notification as the reason for non-receipt of assessment orders, which led to delayed filing of appeals. The petitioner argued that despite intimating the change of address to the assessing authority, it was unaware of the assessment orders until coercive recovery proceedings were initiated. Upon obtaining certified copies of the orders, the appeals were filed.

The first respondent rejected the appeals as non-maintainable, alleging that the change of business address was not properly intimated since there was no officer with a corresponding signature in the delivery book. However, the court questioned the validity of comparing a signature from 2012 to the current office composition in 2020, emphasizing the need to give the benefit of doubt to the petitioner in the absence of malpractice allegations or arguments.

Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and directions were issued for the first respondent to receive the appeals as maintainable. Notably, 100% of disputed taxes in TNVAT appeals and 25% in CST appeals had been paid, with no dispute on this matter. The court instructed the re-presentation of appeals within two weeks without limitation constraints, to be considered on merits promptly.

In conclusion, the writ petitions were disposed of with the specified terms, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed without any costs imposed. The judgment highlighted the importance of fair consideration in signature verification issues and the timely processing of appeals despite initial procedural challenges.