Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for writ petitioner that monthly returns were being filed under Section 21 of TNVAT Act and there was deemed http://www.judis.nic.in assessment under Section 22(2) of TNVAT Act. It is submitted by learned counsel for writ petitioner that annual turnover of writ petitioner in said AY was over Rs.1 crore, owing to which, writ petitioner furnished annual returns with certificate from the Auditor in the prescribed form. This Court is informed that the prescribed form is Form WW.

7. Respondent noticed that there were differences and discrepancies between monthly returns filed by writ petitioner and the annual returns as filed in the aforesaid Form WW. Therefore, revisional notices dated 10.01.2018 and 23.03.2018 were issued to writ petitioner, pointing out that there are discrepancies and differences between the returns filed by writ petitioner and the annual returns in Form WW, which has also been filed by writ petitioner. Vide these revisional notices, writ petitioner was called upon to send objections and explain the differences. Writ petitioner sent objections vide a letter, which is undated, but this letter was admittedly received by the respondent on 15.05.2018. Respondent has carefully considered the objections and come to the conclusion that writ petitioner has not been able to explain the difference of purchases with reference to Ledger account and purchases. On this basis, objections were overruled and a revised assessment order dated 16.05.2018, bearing reference No.TIN 33813903508/2012-13 came to be passed. This revised assessment order along with the aforesaid revisional http://www.judis.nic.in notice dated 10.01.2018, which preceded the same have been assailed in the instant writ petition and therefore, the two shall collectively be referred to as 'impugned proceedings' for the sake of convenience and clarity. To be noted, while 10.01.2018 is a revisional notice, 16.05.2018 is a revised assessment order under Section 27 of TNVAT Act. Therefore, for the sake of convenience, as both are assailed in the instant writ petition, they are collectively be referred to as 'impugned proceedings'.

9. In response to the submissions made by learned counsel for writ petitioner, learned State counsel pointed out that JKM Graphics case does not help the writ petitioner, as it is clearly distinguishable on facts. It is the http://www.judis.nic.in stated position and pointed submission of learned State Counsel that JKM Graphics case is a case of mismatch, wherein the mismatch is between the returns filed by the dealers and the data available with the Department. Unlike JKM Graphics case, in the instant case, the discrepancy is between two sets of returns both filed by writ petitioner. In other words, it is submitted that the discrepancy is between two returns, where both returns have been filed by the writ petitioner. One is the monthly returns and the other is annual statutory returns filed in the prescribed form viz., Form WW, as the annual turnover of writ petitioner exceeded Rs.1 Crore in said AY, as mentioned supra. Pointing out this vital difference, learned counsel submits that unlike JKM principle, which was a case of mismatch between returns filed by writ petitioner and the data available with the Department, this is a case of discrepancies between two returns, where both the returns have been filed by the writ petitioner. This takes us to the short facts set out in JKM Graphics case.