Allowed

M/s.Ss Manufacturing Pvt.Ltd., v. The Assistant Commissioner

Madras HC5 Apr 2018WP/6144/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed writ petitions challenging assessment orders. It held that missing Forms R, T, or S cannot justify denying liability or drawing adverse inferences, as these forms are for administrative convenience. The Court directed the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment under Section 13 after affording a personal hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned assessment orders set aside; respondent directed to redo assessment under Section 13 of TNVAT Act after affording personal hearing.

M/s.Ss Manufacturing Pvt.Ltd., Vs The Assistant… — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 05.04.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM W.P.Nos.6144 to 6147 of 2018 & W.M.P.Nos.7571 to 7574 of 2018

¶5

M/s.S.S.Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd., No.127, Mettupalayam Main Road Panrutti Village, Sriperumpudur Taluk Kancheepuram-631 604 Rep. by its Senior Executive/ Authorized Signatory R.Vinayagamoorthy

¶6

... Petitioner in all the writ petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Assistant Commissioner (CT) Oragadam Assessment Circle No.3/177, 2^nd Floor, Bazaar Street Hajiyar Nagar, Padappai- 601 301

¶9

...Respondent in all the writ petitions

¶10

Prayer in W.P.No.6144 of 2018: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records culminated in the respondent's impugned order dated 09.02.2018 in ref. TIN:33461663825/2009-10, demanding Rs.4,32,308/- as interest due, annexing Form-O for Rs.2,59,333/- as balance of tax and Form RR Rs.4,32,308/- as penalty and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to pass a revised assessing order in accordance with Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006.

¶11

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

¶12

Prayer in W.P.No.6145 of 2018: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records culminated in the respondent's impugned order dated 09.02.2018 in ref. TIN:33461663825/2011-12, demanding Rs.46,386/- as interest due, annexing Form-O for Rs.21,712/- as balance of tax and Form RR Rs.46,386/- as penalty and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to pass a revised assessing order in accordance with Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006.

¶13

Prayer in W.P.No.6146 of 2018: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records culminated in the respondent's impugned order dated 09.02.2018 in ref. TIN:33461663825/2013-14, demanding Rs.8,02,410/- as interest due, annexing Form-O for Rs.8,48,026/- as balance of tax and Form RR Rs.8,02,410/- as penalty and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to pass a revised assessing order in accordance with Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006.

¶14

Prayer in W.P.No.6147 of 2018: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records culminated in the respondent's impugned order dated 09.02.2018 in ref. TIN:33461663825/2014-15, demanding Rs.95,648/- as interest due, annexing Form-O for Rs.68,544/- as balance of tax and Form RR Rs.95,648/- as penalty and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to pass a revised assessing order in accordance with Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006.

¶15

Heard Mr.R.Prabhakaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Hariharan, learned Additional Government Pleader accepting notice on behalf of the respondent.

¶16

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

¶17

2.The petitioner, who is a registered dealer on the file of the respondent under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'TNVAT Act'), has filed these writ petitions challenging the Assessment Orders under the said Act for the Assessment years 2009-10, 2011-12, 2013-14 and 2014-15.

¶18

3.The only issue in all these writ petitions is liability under Section 13 of the TNVAT Act, which deals with deduction at source in works contract. The revision notice came to be issued to the petitioner for all the Assessment years pursuant to the audit inspection conducted in the business premises of the petitioner on 20.09.2016. The petitioner submitted their objection to the said revision notice and reiterated the stand taken by them in their earlier reply dated 14.10.2016 and 07.11.2016. The sum and substance of the reply being that the purchases effected by them was for their own use. Though such a stand was taken, it was not clearly mentioned in the objection. But, there were annexures along with the objection dated 14.10.2016, which dealt with the liability under Section 13 of the TNVAT Act.

¶19

The respondent does not dispute the fact that the objections have been received. But it is the case of the respondent that the petitioner has not produced necessary forms such as Form R/T/S. These forms are required to be produced as per Rule 9 of the TNVAT Rules, 2007. Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 9 sets down the circumstances when 'Form R' is required to be produced. Sub-Rule (2) of 'Rule 9' sets down the circumstance when 'Form S' is required to be produced. Even assuming that the petitioner has not produced those forms, that by itself will not be a ground to deny the petitioner the relief which he is entitled to nor to draw an adverse inference. All these forms are meant for facilitating the smooth administrative functioning. Even assuming that the necessary forms were not produced earlier, still it is well open to the Assessing Officer to ascertain the truth and the nature of transaction. This alone shall be a proper assessment proceeding.

¶20

In the light of the above, this Court is of the view that assessment should be redone as it is a common issue in respect of the Assessment years 2009-10, 2011-12, 2013-14 and 2014-15.

¶21

In the result, all these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned assessment orders are set aside and the respondent is directed to re-do the assessment under the head 'liability' under Section 13 of the TNVAT Act after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and pass a reasoned order on merits and in accordance with law. Learned counsel appearing

¶22

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

¶23

for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has all the necessary forms and records in their possession. If that is so, the petitioner is at liberty to produce all forms and records before the Assessing Officer, who shall consider the same during the course of personal hearing. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶24

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)

¶25

//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
gpa
To,
The Assistant Commissioner (CT)
Oragadam Assessment Circle
No.3/177, 2 nd Floor, Bazaar Street
Hajiyar Nagar, Padappai- 601 301
+2cc to Mr.R.Prabhakaran, Advocate, S.R.No.25342
+1cc to Government Pleader, S.R.No.25740
W.P.Nos.6144 to 6147 of 2018 &
W.M.P.Nos.7571 to 7574 of 2018
KAN(CO)
RRK(18/04/2018)

¶26

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

M/s.Ss Manufacturing Pvt.Ltd., v. The Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Ss Manufacturing 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.Cavinkare Pvt.Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Income Tax

Thomson Furniture, Vs The Commercial Tax Officer(St)

Pnp Polytex Private Limited, Vs Assistant Commissioner of

M/S.v.M.G.Enterprises, Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Tvl.Golden Shower Garments, Vs The Assistant Commissioner

Sarrangan Ashok Vs Commissioner of Income Tax