TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 444X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her proceedings relating to assessment years 2007-08 to 2010-11 are barred by limitation? - HELD THAT:- Under Section 27(1) of the TNVAT Act, the limitation period in respect of escaped assessment is six years from the date of assessment. Section 22(2) deals with deemed assessment. The principal clause prescribes that there will be deemed assessment on the 31st October of the succeeding year to the relevant assessment year - Admittedly, assessment orders were not issued in these cases pursuant to returns being filed. Since the proviso applies to these cases, as regards assessment years 2007-08 to 2010-11, limitation should be computed from 01.07.2012. If so computed, the assessments relating to the above mentioned orders are within the six ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,520/-. As against this, in the rectification order, the assessing officer has determined the suppressed freight charges as Rs. 13,17,651/- and computed tax on that basis. It also appears that some additional factors were taken into consideration in the rectification order. The impugned assessment orders are quashed and these matters are remanded for re-consideration - petition disposed of by way of remand. - Honourable Mr. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy For the Petitioner : Mr.T.Ramesh P.Rajavelu For the Respondent : Mr.C.Harsha Raj Additional Govt. Pleader (Taxes) COMMON ORDER In these writ petitions, assessment orders under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (the TNVAT Act) in respect of assessment years 2007-08 to 2014-15 are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riod is six years in terms of Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, learned counsel submits that such proceedings could not have been initiated up to assessment year 2010-11. In this connection, he relies upon the revised notice dated 27.08.2018. As regards assessment year 2014-15, learned counsel submitted that there was a computational error in the assessment order, and, therefore, a rectification petition was filed. Although the computational error was rectified by order dated 05.06.2020, learned counsel submitted that the said order also proceeded on the basis of information gathered from the Internet and not on the basis of credible information indicating suppression of freight charges by the petitioner. Therefore, he submits that proceedings r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment orders are liable to be quashed. 5. Mr.C.Harsha Raj, learned Additional Government Pleader, made submissions in reply and to the contrary. With regard to limitation, learned counsel referred to sub-section 2 of Section 22 of the TNVAT Act and pointed out that with regard to assessment years 2006-07 to 2010-11, deemed assessments occurred on 30.06.2012. If the six year period is computed from 30.06.2012, learned counsel submits that the proceedings in respect of all the assessment years were within the period of limitation since such proceedings were initiated pursuant to notice dated 12.08.2016. He also points out, in this regard, that the main basis for re-assessment was the notice dated 12.08.2006 and not the revised notice dated 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he respondent did not provide any evidence of actual increased outflow of funds towards freight charges. Therefore, he reiterated that the impugned orders call for interference. 8. The first issue that falls for consideration is whether proceedings relating to assessment years 2007-08 to 2010-11 are barred by limitation. Under Section 27(1) of the TNVAT Act, the limitation period in respect of escaped assessment is six years from the date of assessment. Section 22(2) deals with deemed assessment. The principal clause prescribes that there will be deemed assessment on the 31st October of the succeeding year to the relevant assessment year. The proviso thereto deviates from the date of deemed assessment in the principal clause by prescribing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Gujarat, the freight charges per consignment was fixed at Rs. 1,00,000/-. As regards the State of Rajasthan, it was fixed at Rs. 80,000/-. The assessment orders also record the petitioner's contention that about 13 consignments from Gujarat were of the value below Rs. 50,000/- per consignment. Effectively, the freight charges determined by the assessing officer were twice the value of the consignment as regards those 13 consignments. Similarly, the petitioner has pointed out that six consignments were below the value of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Once again, the freight charges determined by the assessing officer is slightly more than the value of consignment as regards these six consignments. These illustrations demonstrate that the assessing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
