Madras High Court
M/S.Victory Enterprises vs The Assistant Commissioner (St) on 20 December, 2024
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: C.Saravanan
W.P.No.21012 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.12.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.No.21012 of 2022
and
W.M.P.Nos.20014 and 20015 of 2022
M/s.Victory Enterprises,
Represented by Mr.M.Mohan,
Proprietor,
359-E, CTH Road,
Thirumullaivoyal,
Chennai – 62. ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Assistant Commissioner (ST),
Thirumullaivoyal Assessment Circle,
Chennai – 3. ... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records on the files of
the respondent in TIN:33191363710/2013-14 dated 10.03.2022 and
quash the same as being barred by limitation as per under Section 27 of
the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act and violative principles of natural
justice.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
W.P.No.21012 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Srikanth
For Respondent : Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran
Government Advocate
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court against the impugned order dated 10.03.2022 passed by the respondent for the Assessment Year 2013-2014.
2. The specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was deemed to have been assessed in terms of Section 22(2) of TNVAT Act, 2006 on 31.10.2014.
3. The case of the petitioner is that earlier a notice dated 28.11.2017 was issued to the petitioner to revise the Assessment that was deemed to have been completed on 31.10.2014 proposing an addition of Rs.3,15,489/- to the taxable turnover of the petitioner by invoking section 27(1)(a) of TNVAT Act, 2006 to which the petitioner had also replied on 08.04.2019. It is submitted that even though the petitioner had https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/9 W.P.No.21012 of 2022 replied to the same on 08.04.2019, no orders was passed either confirming or dropping the proposal contained in notice dated 28.11.2017.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that however the demand has been confirmed in the impugned order is based on a revised notice dated 04.12.2020, wherein, the respondent had proposed to revised the escaped turnover as Rs.17,12,472/- instead of Rs.3,15,489/-.
5. It is submitted that the petitioner has replied to the same on 28.12.2020 and that the petitioner was also heard on 20.10.2021, wherein, it was the objection of the petitioner that the demand cannot be inflated which was however overruled during the personal hearing. Therefore, the petitioner had filed a objection notice on 01.11.2021 by which time, the impugned order dated 10.03.2022 had been passed.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are plethora of decision of this Court as per which demands cannot be https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/9 W.P.No.21012 of 2022 inflated by issuance of revised notices as they would cause prejudice to an assessee. He would also submit that the impugned order has been passed on 10.03.2022 after the limitation expired on 31.10.2022 to pass the revised impugned Assessment order.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order has also not dealt with the merits of the case and has merely rejected the request of the petitioner without any proper reasons. Hence, submits that on this count also the impugned order is unsustainable and therefore demand proposed in notice dated 04.12.2020 confirmed vide impugned order dated 10.03.2022 liable to be quashed.
8. The learned Government Advocate for the respondent on the other hand would submit that the decision of this Court in the case of M/s.Orient Fans (Proprietor – M/s.Orient Paper and Industries Limited) Vs. The State Tax Officer, as delineated the legal position as far as limitation under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, 2006. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/9 W.P.No.21012 of 2022
9. It is submitted that while dealing with an identical provisions under the provisions of the Pondicherry VAT Act, 2007, also another order was passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) Vs. Supreme Coaters and Fabricators 2024 SCC Online Mad 5375.
10. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondent.
11. The objection of the petitioner on account of limitation has to be overruled in the light of the decision of this Court in the case of M/s.Orient Fans (Proprietor – M/s.Orient Paper and Industries Limited) Vs. The State Tax Officer and the decision of the Division Bench in Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) Vs. Supreme Coaters and Fabricators 2024 SCC Online Mad 5375.
12. However, it is noticed that the impugned order has not considered the objection of the petitioner as far as defence of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/9 W.P.No.21012 of 2022 petitioner on merits of the case. It is merely states that the petitioner had filed a reply dated 28.12.2020, in which, they have stated that the present proceedings were barred by limitation and therefore penalty under Section 27(3) of the Act was also justified.
13. A reading of the impugned order indicates that barring discussion on the limitation and a conclusion that there was a escaped turnover there is no clear discussion as to how the proposal contained in the revised notice dated 04.12.2020 was sustained. It is however made clear that equitable principles of estoppal will not apply on tax and equity are strangers like chalk and cheese. Therefore, merely the first revised notice dated 28.11.2017 proposed a sum of Rs.3,15,489/- ipso facto would not mean the respondent was precluded for issuing a revised notice dated 04.12.2020 proposing to revised escaped turnover of Rs.17,12,472/-. The order has to clearly discuss the same. Therefore, to balance the interest of the parties, Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order and the remits the case back to re-do the adjudication on merits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that issue relating to limitation cannot https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/9 W.P.No.21012 of 2022 be agitated against, as the issue now stands covered by the views expressed by this Court in the case of M/s.Orient Fans (Proprietor – M/s.Orient Paper and Industries Limited) Vs. The State Tax Officer and in view of the Division Bench in Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) Vs. Supreme Coaters and Fabricators reported in 2024 SCC Online Mad 5375.
14. This Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
20.12.2024 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Neutral Citation : Yes/No jas https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/9 W.P.No.21012 of 2022 To:
The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Thirumullaivoyal Assessment Circle, Chennai – 3.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/9 W.P.No.21012 of 2022 C.SARAVANAN, J.
jas W.P.No.21012 of 2022 and W.M.P.Nos.20014 and 20015 of 2022 20.12.2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/9