Allowed

Tvl. Crescent Electricals v. the Assistant Commissioner

Madras HC18 Sept 2019WP/7000/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a VAT assessment order that reversed Input Tax Credit. Noting the department failed to consider submitted evidence and objections, the court set aside the order in the interests of justice and directed a de novo assessment within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned assessment order set aside; petitioner directed to appear for de novo assessment by october 24, 2019.

Tvl. Crescent Electricals Vs the Assistant Commissioner — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 18.09.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶5

W.P.No.7000 of 2014 and M.P. No. 1 of 2014

¶6

Tvl.Crescent Electricals rep. by its Manager, Mr.Mohammed Iqbal, No.629, Kannappar Thidal, Chennai – 600 003. ...Petitioner Vs Assistant Commissioner (CT) Moore Market, (North), Assessment Circle, No.191, NSC Boase Road, Chennai 600 001 ... Respondent

¶7

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ or order of direction or any other Writ in the nature Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order of assessment in TIN No.33880381157/2012-13 dated 29.01.2014 on the file of the respondent and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and further directing the respondent to redo the assessment after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶8

The petitioner challenges an order of assessment dated 29.01.2014 for the period 2012-13 reversing Input Tax Credit (ITC) under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (in short 'Act') in respect of

¶9

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

¶10

various purchases made from dealers, who according to the Revenue, do not hold a valid registration.

¶11

On merits, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh Trading Company [1998 (109) STC 439] and the decision of this Court in the case of The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Broadway Assessment Circle Vs. Bhairav Trading Company [(2016) 96 VST 315 (Mad)] for the proposition that reversal of Input Tax Credit on the basis of retrospective cancellation of a selling dealer is not in line with the provisions of the Act.

¶12

Prior to completion of assessment, objections were called for from the assessee. Though the petitioner has placed on record objections dated 03.01.2014, there is no acknowledgment for having filed the same.

¶13

Mr.M.Hariharan, learned Government Advocate for the Revenue also confirms that on verification of the assessment records, only the objections relating to the period 2013-2014 are located and not those relating to the period 2012-13.

¶14

Be that as it may, the petitioner has placed on record before me voluminous evidence between pages 15 to 81 comprising cash bills as well as its monthly returns. These evidences, according to it, were produced for verification before the Department, but have not been taken into account in the finalization of the assessment in time.

¶15

Taking into account the submissions of the petitioner, bearing in mind that the petitioner is a small dealer and in the interests of justice, the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner will appear before the Assessing Authority on 25.09.2019 at 10.30 a.m and no further notice need be issued in this regard. After hearing the petitioner and considering any/all evidences that may be placed before him, the officer will pass an order of assessment de novo within a period of four (4) weeks i.e., on or before 24.10.2019, bearing in mind the decisions in the cases of Bhairav Trading Company and Suresh Trading Company (supra), in accordance with law.

¶16

The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. No costs.

¶17

Sd/-

¶18

Assistant Registrar(CS IX)

¶19

//True Copy//

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

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

¶22

rkp To Assistant Commissioner (CT) Moore Market, (North), Assessment Circle, No.191, NSC Boase Road, Chennai 600 001

¶23

+1cc to Mr.P.Haribabu , Advocate SR.No. 80408

¶24

W.P.No.7000 of 2014 and M.P. Nos. 1 of 2014 A.SK(24/09/2019)

¶25

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

Tvl. Crescent Electricals v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tvl. Crescent Electricals 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A. Saraswathi Vs the Assistant Commissioner

The General Manager, Vs the Commissioner

Tvl. Bajaj Bros Vs the Deputy Commercial Tax

M/S.Madras Vanspathi Ltd, Vs the Commissioner

P.Prabakaran, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

M/S.Arun Textiles (P) Ltd., Vs the Commercial Tax Officer