2016 (1) TMI 89 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Levy of tax under the TNVAT Act 2006 - difference in sales turn over of dry motor mix and clinker as mentioned in Annual Report of the petitioner Company and the turn over reported by the petitioner in its monthly returns under the TNVAT Act, 2006 - Held that - Petitioner contended that they have already collected all the manual copies of returns filed before the other States. Hence I am of the considered view that in the interest of justice it would be appropriate to set aside the order impugned in this Writ Petition and remit the matter back to the authorities concerned for passing appropriate order. Therefore the petitioner is directed to produce all the manual copies of returns to the respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same the respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of four weeks - Petition disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Assessment of tax under TNVAT Act, 2006 on difference in sales turnover, Responsibility to file relevant documents for transactions in other states, Dismissal of Writ Petition due to time constraints.

Analysis:

Assessment of tax under TNVAT Act, 2006 on difference in sales turnover:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under TNVAT Act, 2006 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, engaged in manufacturing various products, faced assessment for the years 2008-2011. The respondent proposed to levy tax on the difference in sales turnover of certain products as per the Annual Report and monthly returns. The petitioner clarified that the turnover in the Annual Report included sales from all branches nationwide, not just Tamil Nadu. Despite providing detailed breakdowns and copies of returns from other states, the respondent confirmed the tax assessment. The court, considering the petitioner's collection of manual copies of returns from other states, set aside the order and directed the petitioner to submit these copies for reevaluation.

Responsibility to file relevant documents for transactions in other states:
The respondent insisted on the petitioner providing returns filed in other states to verify transactions and tax remittances. The petitioner complied by collecting and submitting copies of monthly returns from branch offices in other states, demonstrating tax payments. However, the respondent's order still upheld the tax assessment, citing missing acknowledgments and annexures to verify the returns' accuracy. The court acknowledged the petitioner's efforts in collecting the required documents and directed a reevaluation based on the submitted manual copies.

Dismissal of Writ Petition due to time constraints:
The respondent argued for the dismissal of the Writ Petition, citing the petitioner's delayed objections to the notice. The petitioner's Senior Counsel highlighted the collection of manual copies of returns from other states to substantiate their claims. The court, in the interest of justice, set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the authorities for a fresh assessment, directing the petitioner to submit all manual copies within two weeks. The respondent was instructed to review and pass appropriate orders within four weeks of receiving the documents, ultimately disposing of the Writ Petitions without costs.

This judgment addresses the complexities of tax assessment across multiple states, emphasizing the importance of providing comprehensive documentation to support claims and ensuring a fair opportunity for parties to present their case before the authorities.