9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 896X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iction of the appellant. They were engaged in the business of buying and selling Ceramic tiles and processing the broken tiles and selling them as border tiles. The case on hand pertains to the assessment year 2012-13. The dealer had been filing their monthly returns as per Section 21 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Section 22(2) of the Act states that every such dealer shall be deemed to have been assessed for the year on the 31st day of October of the succeeding year. Since we are concerned with the assessment year 2012-13, the dealer shall be deemed to have been assessed on 31.10.2013. 3.There was a raid by the Enforcement Wing on the dealer's business premises on 28.04.2015, 29.04.2015, 11.06.2015 to 14.06.2015. Certai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his intra-court appeal. 5.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellant pointed out that the proceedings cannot be said to be time-barred. 6.Before the learned Single Judge, the department argued that the expression "assessment" occurring in Section 27(1)(a) of the Act for the purpose of computing limitation would mean either deemed assessment under Section 22 (2) of the Act or re-assessment under Section 22(4) of the Act depending on the context. The assessee had been re-assessed on 30.09.2016. Hence, limitation for invoking Section 27 of TNVAT Act, 2006 would start only from 30.09.2016. Since notice was issued on 22.02.2021, it was within six years and cannot be said to be time-barred. This contention was rejecte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d have been initiated prior to 29.10.2019. As the proceedings were initiated only on 22.02.2021, the learned Single Judge held that they were hit by limitation. For the reasons set out in the previous paragraph, this conclusion cannot hold good. The starting point for limitation cannot be 31.10.2013 but only 29.01.2016 as rightly contended by the assessing officer. 8.Though we have agreed with the learned Additional Government Pleader on the issue of limitation, we are still of the view that the assessment order impugned in the writ petition was rightly set aside. This is because, the notices preceding the assessment order are delightfully vague. Vagueness is one of the recognized grounds for judicial review. Section 27(1)(a) of the TNVAT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urns for the month of June 2012 to March 2013 is NIL. It proves that you had suppressed the interstate purchases of ceramic tiles for the turnover of Rs. 83,26,868/- for the year 2012-2013." The noticee can only deny such an allegation. The assessee ought to have been confronted with specific transactional details. One is not able to discern as to how many purchases were made by the assessee and from whom and on what dates. Nothing has been spelt out. The assessee has not been given reasonable opportunity to defend themselves. That apart, the expression employed in the notice is "proved". This indicates utter pre-determination on the part of the assessing officer. The assessing officer after providing all the details should form only tenta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
