Disposed

M/s.Susee Automobiles P Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Madras HC12 Jun 2024WP(MD)/1309/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Challenging a rejection notice for refunds of alleged excess tax paid on discounted vehicle sales, the Court held that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to explain in the appropriate forum, such as via a supplementary appeal or application for modification, before immediate dismissal. Disposed of with liberty to approach the appellate authority.

What did the court decide?

Petitions disposed of with liberty to file supplementary grounds of appeal or an application for modification for refund before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner under Section 51 and Section 84 of TNV

M/s.Susee Automobiles P Ltd. Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St) — Income Tax | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) Nos.1309 to 1317 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 12.06.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)Nos.1309 to 1317 of 2024 and

¶7

W.M.P.(MD)Nos.1346, 1351 to 1355, 1357, 1359 & 1367 of 2024

¶8

M/s.Susee Automobiles P. Ltd., Represented by its Director, J.Rajiv Subramanian, No.25, Tamil Sangam Road, Madurai - 625 001, Madurai District. ... Petitioner in all the W.Ps. Vs.

¶9

The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Office of the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Tirupparankundram Assessment Circle, K.K.Nagar, Madurai - 625 020, Madurai District. ... Respondent in all the W.Ps. Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.1309 of 2024 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the impugned proceedings of the respondent in TIN 33143521454 / 2007-08 to 2015-16 dated 26.09.2022, quash the same as being contrary to the scheme of the Act insofar as Assessment Year 2007-08 is concerned and further direct the respondent herein to grant refund of Rs.4,04,755/- as per the representation made by the petitioner, dated 01.10.2020.

¶10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 1 of 12_

¶11

W.P.(MD) Nos.1309 to 1317 of 2024

¶12

Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.1310 of 2024 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the impugned proceedings of the respondent in TIN 33143521454 / 2007-08 to 2015-16 dated 26.09.2022, quash the same as being contrary to the scheme of the Act insofar as Assessment Year 2008-09 is concerned and further direct the respondent herein to grant refund of Rs.9,26,151/- as per the representation made by the petitioner, dated 01.10.2020.

¶13

Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.1311 of 2024 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the impugned proceedings of the respondent in TIN 33143521454 / 2007-08 to 2015-16 dated 26.09.2022, quash the same as being contrary to the scheme of the Act insofar as Assessment Year 2009-10 is concerned and further direct the respondent herein to grant refund of Rs.13,95,290/- as per the representation made by the petitioner, dated 01.10.2020.

¶14

Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.1312 of 2024 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the impugned proceedings of the respondent in TIN 33143521454 / 2007-08 to 2015-16 dated 26.09.2022, quash the same as being contrary to the scheme of the Act insofar as Assessment Year 2010-11 is concerned and further direct the respondent herein to grant refund of Rs.22,72,018/- as per the representation made by the petitioner, dated 01.10.2020.

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 2 of 12_

¶16

W.P.(MD) Nos.1309 to 1317 of 2024

¶17

Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.1313 of 2024 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the impugned proceedings of the respondent in TIN 33143521454 / 2007-08 to 2015-16 dated 26.09.2022, quash the same as being contrary to the scheme of the Act insofar as Assessment Year 2011-12 is concerned and further direct the respondent herein to grant refund of Rs.35,65,012/- as per the representation made by the petitioner, dated 01.10.2020.

¶18

Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.1314 of 2024 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the impugned proceedings of the respondent in TIN 33143521454 / 2007-08 to 2015-16 dated 26.09.2022, quash the same as being contrary to the scheme of the Act insofar as Assessment Year 2012-13 is concerned and further direct the respondent herein to grant refund of Rs.44,62,397/- as per the representation made by the petitioner, dated 01.10.2020.

¶19

Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.1315 of 2024 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the impugned proceedings of the respondent in TIN 33143521454 / 2007-08 to 2015-16 dated 26.09.2022, quash the same as being contrary to the scheme of the Act insofar as Assessment Year 2013-14 is concerned and further direct the respondent herein to grant refund of Rs.26,81,620/- as per the representation made by the petitioner, dated 01.10.2020.

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 3 of 12_

¶21

W.P.(MD) Nos.1309 to 1317 of 2024

¶22

Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.1316 of 2024 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the impugned proceedings of the respondent in TIN 33143521454 / 2007-08 to 2015-16 dated 26.09.2022, quash the same as being contrary to the scheme of the Act insofar as Assessment Year 2014-15 is concerned and further direct the respondent herein to grant refund of Rs.20,86,684/- as per the representation made by the petitioner, dated 01.10.2020.

¶23

Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.1317 of 2024 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the impugned proceedings of the respondent in TIN 33143521454 / 2007-08 to 2015-16 dated 26.09.2022, quash the same as being contrary to the scheme of the Act insofar as Assessment Year 2015-16 is concerned and further direct the respondent herein to grant refund of Rs.19,89,995/- as per the representation made by the petitioner, dated 01.10.2020.

¶24

For Petitioner in all the W.Ps. : Mr.Shanmugam Rajasekar

¶25

For Respondent in all the W.Ps. : Mr.R.Sureshkumar Additional Govt. Pleader

¶26

COMMON ORDER

¶27

In these Writ Petitions, the petitioner has challenged the impugned communication dated 26.09.2022. By the impugned communication, the respondent has rejected the request of the petitioner for refund of the

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 4 of 12_

¶29

W.P.(MD) Nos.1309 to 1317 of 2024

¶30

excess tax allegedly paid by the petitioner on account of the discounts offered by the petitioner to its customers.

¶31

2 . The petitioner had earlier filed a composite Petition on

¶32

01.10.2020 for refund of the tax allegedly paid by the petitioner to the Commercial Taxes Department. Since these refund claims were not entertained by the Commercial Taxes Department, the petitioner rushed to this Court in W.P.(MD)Nos.14479 to 14487 of 2022 and secured an order on 11.07.2022, whereby this Court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 01.10.2020, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order.

¶33

3 . Pursuant to the above said order, the impugned order titled as ''Notice'' has been passed. By the impugned communication, the request of the petitioner for refund of the tax allegedly paid by the petitioner in excess on account of the sale discounts offered to its customers has been rejected. The impugned communication also refers to corresponding assessment orders passed for the respective Assessment Years as detailed below:-

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

Page No. 5 of 12

¶36

W.P.(MD) Nos.1309 to 1317 of 2024

¶37

Sl.	Assessment Year	Date
No.
1.	2007-2008	30.11.2020
2.	2008-2009	25.04.2022
3.	2009-2010	25.04.2022
4.	2010-2011	24.09.2021
5.	2011-2012	25.03.2022
6.	2012-2013	25.03.2022
7.	2013-2014	16.05.2022
8.	2014-2015	16.05.2022
9.	2015-2016	16.05.2022

¶38

4 . The learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to explain the

¶39

manner in which the excess tax was paid by the petitioner. He refers to

¶40

the following passages from the petitioner's representation dated

¶41

01.10.2020.

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 6 of 12_

¶43

W.P.(MD) Nos.1309 to 1317 of 2024

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 7 of 12_

¶45

W.P.(MD) Nos.1309 to 1317 of 2024

¶46

5 . On the other hand, the learned Additional Government

¶47

Pleader for the respondent would submit that the present Writ Petitions are devoid of merits and are liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that there is no provision under the Act or the Rules for issuing refund with respect to discount given to the customers towards the sale of vehicles and no excess amount of tax was paid by the petitioner. Hence, the notice issued to the petitioner on 26.09.2022 is proper and does not warrant any interference.

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 8 of 12_

¶49

W.P.(MD) Nos.1309 to 1317 of 2024

¶50

6 . It is further submitted that even the specimen pre-invoice number

¶51

cited in the above said representation, dated 01.10.2020, in respect of one of the customers namely, T.K.Periasamy shows that there is no discount. The learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that even otherwise, the Writ Petitions are without any merit and therefore, the same are liable to be dismissed.

¶52

7 . I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent.

¶53

8 . The refund of excess tax paid by an assessee/dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 [hereinafter referred to as ''the TNVAT Act''] goes hand in hand with the assessment. The alleged excess tax has been paid by the petitioner during 2007-2008 to 2015-2016. The impugned communication itself reveals that the assessment orders have been passed only in the year 2022. It is therefore, always open for the petitioner either to file a statutory appeal against the above said order canvassing the right of refund or in the alternative, the petitioner is not without any remedy for rectifying the order by invoking the machinery

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 9 of 12_

¶55

W.P.(MD) Nos.1309 to 1317 of 2024

¶56

under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act. Although the power under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act is confined only to an error apparent on the face of the record, I am of the view that the petitioner's claim for refund cannot be rejected straightaway without giving proper opportunity to the petitioner to explain the same in the appropriate forum. In case, the petitioner has already filed an appeal, the petitioner may file supplementary grounds of appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner under Section 51 of the TNVAT Act or in the alternative, file suitable application for modification of the order by giving the particulars of the refund, which the petitioner may be entitled to based on the facts and the evidence that are available with the petitioner.

¶57

9 . With the above liberty, these Writ Petitions stand disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶58

Index : Yes/ No 12.06.2024 Neutral Citation: Yes / No Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order smn2

¶59

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 10 of 12_

¶60

W.P.(MD) Nos.1309 to 1317 of 2024

¶61

¶62

The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Office of the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Tirupparankundram Assessment Circle, K.K.Nagar, Madurai - 625 020, Madurai District.

¶63

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 11 of 12_

¶64

W.P.(MD) Nos.1309 to 1317 of 2024

¶65

C.SARAVANAN, J.

¶66

smn2

¶67

Common order in W.P.(MD) Nos.1309 to 1317 of 2024

¶68

12.06.2024

¶69

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 12 of 12_

M/s.Susee Automobiles P Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Susee Automobiles P Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

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

Murugesan Vs The Ombudsman

A.Sudalaiveerapandian Vs The Joint Commissioner

Tvl Pioneer Spinners Vs The State Tax Officer

The State Tax Officer Vs Tvl. Abbas Electricals

M/s.Essar Sign Industries Vs The Income Tax Officer

M/s.Durai Timber Depot Vs The Commercial Tax Officer