Disposed

M/s.Vignesh Furniture, v. The State Tax Officer

Madras HC2 Aug 2019WP/22351/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the writ petition seeking quashing of an assessment order under the TNGST Act. It directed the respondent to furnish the stock statement taken at the time of inspection and redo the stock reconciliation, while noting that the suppression aspect could be challenged via statutory appeal.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to furnish stock statement and reconciliation to petitioner and redo stock reconciliation part of assessment.

M/s.Vignesh Furniture, Vs The State Tax Officer — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 02.08.2019

¶3

Coram

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶5

W.P.No.22351 of 2019 and W.M.P.No.21671 of 2019

¶6

M/s.Vignesh Furniture Represented by its Proprietor S.Raju 29/16, Royapettah High Road Chennai – 14

¶7

.. Petitioner Vs.

¶8

The State Tax Officer Royapettah Assessment Circle Greenways Road Chennai – 28 .. Respondent

¶9

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the of the proceedings of the respondent in TNGST 0781053/2006-07 dated 29.05.2019, quash the same and direct the respondent to furnish the details of stock taken at the time of inspection.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Kumar

¶11

For Respondent : Ms.G.Dhanamadhri Government Advocate

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Mr.R.Kumar, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner and Ms.G.Dhanamadhri, learned Government Advocate, on behalf of sole respondent, are before this Court.

¶14

2.An order made by the respondent being 'order dated 29.05.2019 bearing reference TNGST/0781053/2006-07' (hereinafter 'impugned order' for brevity) has been called in question in the instant writ petition.

¶15

With consent of learned counsel on both sides, main writ petition is taken up, heard out and is being disposed of.

¶16

4.To be noted, pursuant to earlier hearing on 30.07.2019, Revenue counsel has kept the records of the Department ready in the hearing today.

¶17

Be that as it may, there is no disputation or disagreement that the impugned order has been made under Section https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 16 of 'Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959' (' TNGST Act' for brevity).

¶18

6.There is no disputation that Section 16 of TNGST Act is in pari materia to Section 21 of 'Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (Tamil Nadu Act 32 of 2006)', which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'TNVAT Act' for brevity. Impugned order pertains to revised assessment for the Assessment year 2006-07, which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'said AY' for the sake of convenience and clarity.

¶19

With regard to said AY, revised Assessment order came to be passed on 07.06.2011 and the same was called in question by writ petitioner in this Court by way of earlier writ petitions being W.P.Nos.17580 to 17583 of 2011 and the said writ petitions came to be disposed of by a common order by this Court on 07.10.2014. Operative portion of the common order is contained in Paragraph 7 and the same reads as follows:

¶20

'7.Since it is stated that the records, which were relied upon for arriving at estimation, were not furnished, this Court is of the view that the matter should be remitted back to the Assessing Officer to be heard and decided independently on merits and in accordance with law, without being influenced by the findings recorded by the Enforcement Wing in the D-3 proposal. Therefore, the matter is remitted back to the second respondent for fresh consideration. The second respondent shall issue notice to the petitioner, afford an opportunity of personal hearing to them, hear them and decide the matter on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. '

¶21

Pursuant to the aforesaid order of this Court, respondent embarked upon the exercise of making a revised assessment. With regard to the revised assessment, there are two aspects which constitute the revised assessment. One aspect pertains to what can be described as 'suppression' and the other aspect pertains to what can be described as 'stock reconciliation'.

¶22

Post aforesaid order of this Court, writ petitioner sent a communication dated 11.03.2016 to the Department followed by another communication dated 03.04.2019. In these communications, writ petitioner has specifically sought for details of stock taken at the time of inspection.

¶23

The respondent, had earlier sent a communication dated 27.01.2016 with certain enclosures and to be noted, this communication is also post aforesaid earlier order of this Court. Earlier order of this Court is cited as No.2 in the said communication. Said communication mentions about certain enclosures, but as already mentioned supra, records of the Department are before this Court today and on verification, it comes to light that the stock reconciliation statement and more importantly, stock statement taken at the time of inspection does not form part of the enclosures. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶24

As already alluded to supra, the impugned order turns on two aspects, namely, a) suppression and b) stock reconciliation.

¶25

With regard to suppression, the stock register or stock reconciliation statement is of no relevance and with regard to suppression aspect, liability of the writ petitioner has been fixed at Rs.67,99,404/- (Rupees Sixty Seven Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand Four Hundred and Four only) in the impugned order. With regard to stock reconciliation liability, it has been fixed at Rs.55,53,889/- (Rupees Fifty Five Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty Nine only) in the impugned order.

¶26

Learned counsel for writ petitioner, on instructions, very fairly submits that with regard to suppression aspect i.e., Rs.67,99,404/- (Rupees Sixty Seven Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand Four Hundred and Four only), writ petitioner would avail statutory remedy of appeal by approaching the jurisdictional Appellate Deputy Commissioner under Section 51 of TNVAT Act. With regard to stock reconciliation aspect of little over Rs.55.53 lakhs, mater is remitted back to the respondent with a direction to furnish to the writ petitioner the stock statement made at the time of inspection as well as stock reconciliation statement and redo that part of the assessment alone.

¶27

As far as statutory appeal under Section 51 of TNVAT Act with regard to suppression aspect where the liability is little over Rs.67.99 lakhs, though obvious it is made cleat that when the writ petitioner avails alternate remedy, conditions of predeposit and time frame adumbrated under Section 51 of TNVAT will govern the writ petitioner.

¶28

It is open to the writ petitioner to seek condonation of delay and also exclusion of time spent in the instant writ petition by placing reliance on Section 14 of Limitation Act. If the writ petitioner chooses to do so, the appellate authority i.e., jurisdictional Appellate Deputy Commissioner shall decide the same on their own merits and in accordance with law.

¶29

This writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶30

¶31

1.The State Tax Officer,

¶32

Royapettah Assessment Circle, Greenways Road, Chennai – 28

¶33

2.The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST), Chennai East.

¶34

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

M/s.Vignesh Furniture, v. The State Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Vignesh Furniture, 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

M/s. Kwangjin India Autosystems Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Assistant Commissioner

State Bank of India Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

State Bank Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Mahalakshmi Industrial,Training institute. Vs The Commissioner

M/s.Cmr Toyotsu Aluminium India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Teh Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

Mahalakshmi Nursery School Vs The Commissioner