Madras High Court
Tvl.Suse Automobiles Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner (Ct) (Fac) on 16 October, 2012
Author: R.Sudhakar
Bench: R.Sudhakar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16/10/2012 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR W.P.(MD)No.11453 of 2012 W.P.(MD)No.11454 of 2012 and W.P.(MD)No.11463 of 2012 and M.P(MD)Nos.1, 1 and 1 of 2012 W.P.(MD)No.11453 of 2011: Tvl.Suse Automobiles Limited, represented by its Chairman/Director, Plot No.H4, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Kappalur, Madurai - 625 008. ... Petitioner Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (CT) (FAC), Thiruparankundram Assessment Circle, Madurai - 20. ... Respondent Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the respondent in TIN.33143521454/2009-2010 dated 17.07.2012 and quash the same. !For Petitioner ... Mr.P.S.Raman, Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Raghavan ^For Respondent ... Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian, Special Govt. Pleader * * * * * W.P.(MD)No.11454 of 2011: Tvl.Suse Automobiles Limited, represented by its Chairman/Director, Plot No.H4, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Kappalur, Madurai - 625 008. ... Petitioner Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (CT) (FAC), Thiruparankundram Assessment Circle, Madurai - 20. ... Respondent Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the respondent in TIN.33143521454/2010-2011 dated 17.07.2012 and quash the same. For Petitioner ... Mr.P.S.Raman, Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Raghavan For Respondent ... Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian, Special Govt. Pleader * * * * * W.P.(MD)No.11463 of 2011: Tvl.Suse Automobiles Limited, represented by its Chairman/Director, Plot No.H4, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Kappalur, Madurai - 625 008. ... Petitioner Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (CT) (FAC), Thiruparankundram Assessment Circle, Madurai - 20. ... Respondent Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the respondent in TIN.33143521454/2008-2009 dated 17.07.2012 and quash the same. For Petitioner ... Mr.P.S.Raman, Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Raghavan For Respondent ... Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian, Special Govt. Pleader * * * * * :COMMON ORDER
W.P(MD)No.11453 of 2012 has been filed to issue a writ of Certiorari to quash the proceedings of the respondent in TIN.33143521454/2009-2010 dated 17.07.2012.
2. W.P(MD)No.11454 of 2012 has been filed to issue a writ of Certiorari to quash the proceedings of the respondent in TIN.33143521454/2010-2011 dated 17.07.2012.
3. W.P(MD)No.11463 of 2012 has been filed to issue a writ of Certiorari to quash the proceedings of the respondent in TIN.33143521454/2008-2009 dated 17.07.2012.
4. Heard Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.R.Raghavan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.
5. All the above three writ petitions are disposed of on a common and on a preliminary issue of violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner in all these cases, has suffered an order in terms of Section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, pleads that the pre-revision notice pursuant to the self-assessment was received but not placed before the authorities of the Company by the staff for extraneous reasons and therefore, they could not respond to the notice and on failure to do so, a final order came to be passed determining the tax liability without taking into consideration the Input Tax Credit which they are entitled to under law. The prima facie case was not considered in view of the above situation which according to the petitioner was beyond their control.
6. According to the petitioner, the self-assessment has been properly done and there is no benefit wrongfully availed. In support of the plea that the pre- revision notice in terms of Section 22(2) of the Income Tax Act, alleging escaped turnover and wrong availing of Input Tax Credit, is bad, they rely upon the statutory records readily available. It is stated that if the notice had been brought to their attention, they would have submitted all the records to show that the Input Tax Credit availed by them as per the self-assessment, is supported by the statutory records and documents and there is no case of escaped turnover or misstatement.
7. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, all the documents relating to the self-assessment are available with them and there is no erroneous Input Tax Credit availed. There is no basis for the allegation of escaped turnover. Unfortunately, due to the resignation of the duly authorised staff of the petitioner Company who was dealing with the tax matters, the pre-revision notice could not be properly responded and that resulted in the passing of the impugned orders.
8. On this short plea alone, it is contended that the order which has been passed without giving them the opportunity of rebutting the charge will be gross violation of principles of natural justice thereby causing great hardship and prejudice. Despite the fact that all the materials and documents are available, the petitioner will be unlawfully mulcted with tax liability besides other claims.
9. It is also contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that if the matter is remanded back to the authority concerned, they will produce all the documents to show that they have availed the Input Tax Credit on the basis of the statutory records and documents. The petitioner will not protract and will produce the documents within a time limit as may be specified. They will co-operate with the authority concerned for conclusion of the proceedings in accordance with law. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner pleaded indulgence by this Court to render substantial justice.
10. Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent, raised an objection on the plea taken in paragraph 12 of the affidavit. The petitioner in response produced the document to prove the resignation letter given by the staff, Aseena Begum. The petitioner states that the lady failed to inform the authorities for reasons best known to her. It is stated that Aseena Begum is the one who received the pre-revision notice and failed to inform to the petitioner Company and thereafter, she resigned and is the cause for the present confusion. The petitioner, however, without making an issue on that, is willing to submit all records to prove their bona fides and defend their self-assessment as just and proper.
11. On this short plea and considering the prima facie case of the petitioner, the balance of convenience which is in favour of the petitioner, the order passed consequent to the pre-revision notice requires to be reconsidered taking note of the fact that the self-assessment was made on a month wise basis to the knowledge of the Department and the pre-revision notice is for the entire financial year. Therefore, the authority can always reconsider the entire issue on merits if the documents support the petitioner's plea on merits. No prejudice will be caused to the Department if the matter is remanded for reconsideration.
12. On the plea of non-consideration of the relevant documents and lack of opportunity, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned proceedings of the respondent for reconsideration on merits. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings in all the writ petitions are set aside and the matters are remitted back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner shall submit all the records to the respondent within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and appear in person for hearing. Thereafter, the respondent is at liberty to pass orders on merits and in accordance with law after considering the case of the petitioner on merits.
13. The writ petitions are allowed by way of remand. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
rsb To The Assistant Commissioner (CT) (FAC), Thiruparankundram Assessment Circle, Madurai - 20.