TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T:- Since the monthly returns filed by the petitioner under Section 21 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 read with Rule 7 of the TNVAT Rules, 2007 were incorrect, the respondent was entitled to pass orders dated 24.12.2020 to the best of his judgement after the completion of the year in terms of Section 22 (4) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 - There is no limitation prescribed for passing order under Section 22(4) of the TNVAT Act, 2006. The language adopted in Section 22(4) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 merely indicates that the assessment order has to be passed after the completion of that year. It would imply that such assessment orders have to be passed within the reasonable period. Assessment orders cannot be passed long after the expiry of the limitation prescr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s under Section 21 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 read with Rule 7 of the TNVAT Rules, 2007. 4. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the assessments were deemed to have been completed in terms of Section 22(2) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 as amended vide Act No.23 of 2012 with effect from 19.06.2012. It is therefore, the case of the petitioner that the impugned notices issued seeking to revise the assessment on 04.11.2020 for the respective assessment years were time-barred. 5. It is submitted that in response to revision notices issued to the petitioner on 04.11.2020 for these assessment years, the petitioner had also replied on 30.11.2020, which was also duly acknowledged by the respondents. However, without considering the same, the responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner would submit that all the monthly returns were filed by the petitioner by the due date and therefore it was open for the Assessing Officer to either assess the petitioner provisionally in terms of Section 25(1) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 or after the completion of the assessment year. Instead, the machinery under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 was wrongly invoked on 04.11.2020. 10. It is further submitted that all the notices dated 04.11.2020 referred to a notice dated 27.09.2018, copy of which was never received by the petitioner. It also refers VSI-3 Proposal-37/2015-16 dated 29.06.2015, which is a communication exchanged between the Enforcement Wing of the Commercial Tax Department and Office of the respondent, copy of which was not f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exemption under Entry 10 of Part-A of IV Schedule to the TNVAT Act, 2006 and therefore, the monthly returns that was filed by the petitioner for the respective assessment years were incorrect returns. Therefore, the respondents was justified in passing the impugned assessment orders dated 24.12.2020 in terms of Section 22(4) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 pursuant to notice dated 04.11.2020. 15. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent would submit that the first mentioned impugned order dated 24.12.2020 were not passed in violation of principles of natural justice as replies of the petitioner dated 30.11.2020 were considered before passing the impugned orders dated 24.12.2020 and thereafter impugned notice has been issued on 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the TNVAT Act, 2006 makes it clear that the Ruling of the Advance Ruling Authority is binding not only on the petitioner, but also on the respondents and in respect of goods in relation to which the clarification to Advanced Ruling was sought for. 22. Thus, without double, it has to be construed that in the monthly returns filed, the petitioner had wrongly claimed exemption on the imported textile fabric under Entry 10 of Part-A of IV Schedule was not correct. Therefore, the petitioner was liable to pay the tax confined vide Impugned Assessment Order dated 24.12.2020. 23. Since the monthly returns filed by the petitioner under Section 21 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 read with Rule 7 of the TNVAT Rules, 2007 were incorrect, the respondent was e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under lockdown due to out break of Covid-19 pandemic. The Hon ble Supreme Court has saved the limitation in In Re: Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation 2022 (3 )SCC 117. Thus, at best only proceedings against the petitioner for the Asessment Year 2013 2014 alone would stand protected as the limitation expired on 31.10.2020. The limitation would have stood saved up to a period of 90 days from 01.3.2022. 29. Therefore, the Impugned Assessment Orders dated 24.12.2020 and Impugned Notices dated 20.12.2021 for Assessment Year 2011-2012 and for Assessment Year 2012-2013 challenged in W.P.No.513 of 2022 and W.P.No. 516 of 2022 are liable to be quashed. There is no merits in challenge to Assessment Orders dated 24.12.2020 and Impugned Notices da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
