Allowed

M/s.Raja Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner

Madras HC6 Feb 2018WP/2520/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed writ petitions challenging assessment orders under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act. It set aside orders passed without considering objections or consolidating Central Act assessments and remanded the matter for a fresh hearing with an opportunity to adduce evidence.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions are allowed, impugned orders are set aside, and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration and hearing.

M/s.Raja Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Assistant Commissioner — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶2

Dated : 06.2.2018

¶3

Coram :

¶4

The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

Writ Petition Nos.2520 & 2521 of 2018 & WMP.Nos.3075 & 3076 of 2018

¶6

M/s.Raja Steels Private Limited, rep.by its Director Mr.M.Raja

¶7

...Petitioner in both petitioner

¶8

¶9

The Assistant Commissioner (CT) (FAC), Avarampalayam Circle, Coimbatore-18.

¶10

...Respondent in both Petitioner.

¶11

PETITIONS under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writs of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in orders (i) TIN.33402220929/2006-07 and (ii) TIN.33402220929/2008-09, both dated 27.11.2017 passed by the respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to pass a fresh order on merits.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sivakumar For Respondent : Mrs.G.Dhana Madhri, GA

¶13

COMMON ORDER

¶14

Mrs.G.Dhana Madhri, learned Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondent. Heard both. By consent, the writ petitions are taken up for joint disposal.

¶15

The petitioner is a registered dealer on the file of the respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. In these writ petitions, the petitioner has challenged the assessment orders under the provisions of the State Act for the years 2006-07 and 2008-09.

¶16

This Court finds that along with the objections dated 27.10.2010 to the revision notices dated 12.10.2010, the

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

petitioner enclosed details of TNGST sales for the year, CST sales for the year and consolidated sales for the year and also copies of audited financial statements for the year reflecting the sales as prescribed in their statements and stated that the exempted turnover proposed in the notices dated 12.10.2010 was mistakenly reported in the TNGST return form I, which were pertaining to the stock transfer for the months of January to March 2017 as well as for the months of September and October 2008. It was further stated that it has been excessively reported in the TNGST return additional to the CST return report by mistake. To clarify further, the petitioner stated that in the CST sales statement, all the details have been clearly mentioned pertaining to relevant moths. The petitioner also submitted necessary documents to support the stand taken by them with regard to the turnover declared in comparison with the annual report.

¶19

Subsequently, in the year 2012, the CST assessment has been completed by the predecessor officer of the respondent. However, in the impugned orders, the new officer, who had taken charge, has not even dealt with the reply given by the petitioner nor considered the fact that the turnover has been assessed under the Central Act, but merely stated that the objections filed by the dealer were not acceptable and that they were overruled.

¶20

It is seen that the proceedings are pending since 2010 and several letters have been sent by the dealer, which were referred to in the impugned assessment orders. Therefore, the respondent should have done a thorough exercise and then come to the conclusion as to whether the stand taken by the petitioner is proper or not. Without considering the objections, the respondent passed the orders in a single line.

¶21

Further, it has to be seen as to whether the levy of penalty was justified.

¶22

In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the disputed purchase turnover was available in the books of accounts of the dealer, there was no ground of willful non disclosure of the assessable turnover and therefore, the question of levy of penalty will not arise.

¶23

This aspect also has to be considered by the Assessing Officer.

¶24

For all the above reasons, the manner, in which, the assessment has been completed does not stand the test of law.

¶25

Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed, the impugned orders are set aside and the matters are remanded to the respondent for a fresh consideration. The petitioner is directed to submit their objections, which shall be consolidated objections enclosing all relevant records including the assessment made under the Central Act. On receipt of the objections, the respondent shall afford an opportunity of

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶27

personal hearing and redo the assessment in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, the connected WMPs are closed.

¶28

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VII)
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
The Assistant Commissioner (CT) (FAC), Avarampalayam Circle,
Coimbatore-18.
+1cc to Mr.S.Siva Kumar, Advocate SR.No.9070
+1cc to Special Government Pleader(Taxes) SR.No.9932
WP.Nos.2520 & 2521 of 2018&
WMP.Nos.3075 & 3076 of 2018
GN(21/02/2018)

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/s.Raja Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Raja Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Sri Lakshmi Saraswathi Vs Director General of Foreign

Real Talent Engineering Pvt. Vs Assistant Commissioner ( Ct)

Drilcos India Private Ltd, Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Mr.Kavin Kumar Kandaswamy Vs The Chief Commissioner of

M/S. Eastern Chrome Tanning Vs the Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

M/s.Veracious Folks Overseas Vs Commissioner of Customs