Tvl. Standard Electric Company vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

Held

The Court held that the impugned order of assessment cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. The Court found that the assessment was deemed to have been made on 30.06.2012, and therefore, proceedings ought to have been initiated on or before 30.06.2018. The impugned order was passed on 27.04.2021, and the reassessment notice referenced therein is dated 09.02.2021, both of which are beyond the period prescribed under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act. The Court noted that the letter dated 16.07.2015, produced by the respondents as proof of petitioner's response to the pre-revision notice, was denied by the petitioner, and there was no proof to establish when this response was made or when the pre-revision notice dated 02.07.2015 was served on the petitioner. Consequently, the Court allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the impugned order as it was beyond the period of limitation. No order as to costs was made.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.Standard Electric Company, a partnership firm dealing in electric home appliances, filed a writ petition seeking to quash proceedings dated 27.04.2021 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC), Thoothukudi. The impugned order pertains to the assessment year 2010-2011 (TNVAT). The petitioner contends that the original assessment for the said year was deemed to have been passed on 30.06.2012. The impugned order, passed nearly 9 years later, reversed input tax credit on alleged purchases from a registration-cancelled dealer. The petitioner argues that the proceedings are barred by limitation as the period for revision under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act is 6 years, which expired on 30.06.2018. The respondents, however, claim a pre-revision notice was issued on 02.07.2015, within the limitation period, and a subsequent notice for personal hearing was served on 09.02.2021.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned proceedings dated 27.04.2021, initiated by the Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC), Thoothukudi, are barred by limitation under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, considering the original assessment was deemed to have been passed on 30.06.2012? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argues that the impugned order is clearly barred by limitation as it was passed beyond the prescribed 6-year period for revision, which expired on 30.06.2018. They assert that the alleged notice dated 09.02.2021, referenced in the impugned order, was not received and is also beyond the limitation period. They rely on Section 27 of the TNVAT Act which stipulates a 6-year period for revising assessments. Respondents' arguments: The respondents contend that the proceedings are not barred by limitation. They claim a pre-revision notice dated 02.07.2015 was issued to the petitioner, well within the 6-year period from the original assessment date of 30.06.2012. They also state that a notice affording personal hearing was served on 09.02.2021, pursuant to which the revised order was passed. They rely on the petitioner's alleged response to the pre-revision notice, dated 16.07.2015, which they claim was received on 03.09.2021.