17.02.2012, it is seen that the order has been passed under Section 22 (2) of the Act i.e., to say that by the impugned order, the petitioner was deemed to have been assessed based on the returns filed by the petitioner accompanied by the proof of payment of tax. If the case of the petitioner was selected for random scrutiny under Section 22 (3) it would require a notice to be issued to the dealer. On the other hand if the assessment is to be revised under Section 22 (4) on the ground that the returns are incorrect or otherwise then also notice is required to be issued. Sofaras the petitioner's request for filing the revised returns, the time limit prescribed under Rule 7 (9) of the TNVAT Rules, 2007 may not be applicable to the petitioner's case as Sub-rule (9) was inserted by G.O.M.S.No.62, dated 06.05.2010 and in the absence of any specific direction, the said rule cannot be made to have retrospective effect. Thus, the respondent could not have revised the assessment and demanded tax from the petitioner without issuing a revision notice. The petitioner's case is that the impugned assessment order though dated 17.02.2012 was received by them on 07.02.2013. Therefore, the petitioner reasonably apprehends that the assessment order would have been antedated. On receipt of the same, the petitioner filed revised return for the period from April 2007 to March 2008 and at the relevant point of time, there was no time limit prescribed within which the revised return has to be filed. However, the respondent has referred to Rule 7 (9), which came into force only in the year 2010 and would not apply for the assessment year 2007-2008, and stated that revised return cannot be accepted. Since there was an error, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act to rectify the error pointing out that Suo motu, the respondent has revised the turnover without an opportunity to the petitioner. Thus, I find that the procedure adopted by the respondent is completely flawed.
