Disposed

M/S.K.S.a.Velladurai Traders v. the State Tax Officer

Madras HC19 Jun 2018WP(MD)/10045/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court reviewed writ petitions challenging assessment orders under the TNVAT Act. The court found the tax paid on sales was ignored during assessment. It directed the respondent to revise the orders after processing rectification petitions within one month, allowing a personal hearing.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondent to revise the assessment orders after processing rectification petitions within one month, granting a personal hearing to the petitioner.

M/S.K.S.a.Velladurai Traders Vs the State Tax Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 19.06.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.10045 and 10046 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD)No.9173 and 9174 of 2018

¶7

M/s.K.S.A.Velladurai Traders, Represented by its Proprietor, Sri Senthil Andavar Modern Rice Mill, 67/3, Kottur Road, Palayamkottai – 627 002.

¶8

... Petitioner in both W.Ps

¶9

-Vs-

¶10

The State Tax Officer, Palayamkottai Assessment Circle, Palayamkottai.

¶11

...Respondent in both W.Ps

¶12

Common Prayer: Writ Petitions - filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the respondent in the impugned order in TIN No.33265566342/2012-13 and TIN No.33265566342/2014-15 dated 04.08.15 quash the same and direct the respondent to revise the assessment after considering the rectification petitions filed by the petitioner to rectify the error apparent on the face of the order.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Vaitheeswaran

¶14

For Respondent : Mrs.J.Padmavathi Devi Special Government Pleader (in both W.Ps)

¶15

COMMON ORDER

¶16

The petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, [hereinafter referred to as “the TNVAT Act”]. He is a distributor of M/s.PEPSICO India Private Limited and in the habit of filing monthly returns regularly.

¶17

In respect of the assessment year 2012-13, there was a tax https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ demand of Rs.14,92,635/- and penalty of Rs.22,38,952/-. According to the petitioner, total purchase for the month of December 2012 to March 2013 was to the extent of Rs.1,39,44,334/- and tax paid

¶18

¶19

on purchase was to the extent of Rs.18,04,034/-. Likewise, total sales for the Months between December 2012 to March 2013 was to the extent of Rs.98,15,214/- and tax paid on the sales was to the extent of Rs.12,59,108/-. The closing stock for the the assessment year 2012-13 was Rs.41,29,120/- and ITC available at the end of the year was Rs.5,44,926/- as per his returns. But while passing assessment order, the payment of tax to the tune of Rs.12,59,108/was not taken into account, which resulted demand of his tax and penalty as stated above.

¶20

In respect of the assessment year 2014-15, there was a tax demand of Rs.1,23,34,001/- and penalty of Rs.5,09,995/-. According to the petitioner, total purchase for the assessment year 2014-15 was to the extent of Rs.10,63,71,394/- and tax paid on purchase was to the extent of Rs.1,36,14,166/-. Likewise, total sales for the assessment year 2014-15 was to the extent of Rs.10,59,84,319/and tax paid on the sales was to the extent of Rs.1,34,69,102/-. The closing stock for the the assessment year 2014-15 was Rs.3,87,075/- and ITC available at the end of the year was Rs.8,83,967/- as per his returns. But while passing assessment order, the Adjustment on ITC to the tune of Rs.1,34,69,102/- was not taken into account, which resulted demand of his tax and penalty as stated above.

¶21

Aggrieved over the error made in the assessment orders, the petitioner filed an objection under Section 84(1) of the Act, for rectification of the error. However, the respondents have not considered the petitions submitted by the petitioner for rectification. Hence, the petitioner filed the writ petitions.

¶22

On notice, the respondents appeared before this Court and filed statement of accounts. From the perusal of the statement, it is seen that the payment of tax made by the petitioner has not been considered, while passing the assessment orders.

¶23

In such circumstances, this Court is inclined to direct the respondents to have a re-look into the assessment orders and process the rectification petitions filed by the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. While doing so, the petitioner shall be given an opportunity of personal hearing to explain his accounts.

¶24

In the result, the writ petitions are ordered with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar(RTI)

¶27

/True Copy/

¶28

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

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

¶31

¶32

The State Tax Officer, Palayamkottai Assessment Circle, Palayamkottai.

¶33

1 cc TO The Special Government Pleader in SR No. 68849 am AE/SV MMS/SAR1/28.06.2018/3P/3C

¶34

Common Order made in W.P.(MD)No.10045 and 10046 of 2018 Dated: 19.06.2018

¶35

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

M/S.K.S.a.Velladurai Traders v. the State Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.K.S.a.Velladurai Traders v. the State Tax Officer

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

Praveen, S/O.Ponbadi, Vs the Assistant General Manager

M.Ramuthai Vs the District Collector

Tvl.Vasantham Departmental and Vs the Commissioner of Commercial

N.Balasubramanian, Vs the District Collector

M/S.Southern Roadways Ltd., Vs the Commissioner of Land

Gangatharan Vs the Regional Transport Officer