Tvl.Sree Kaderi Ambal Mills PVT.LTD. vs. The Asst. Commissioner(St)(Fac)

Held

The Court held that the proceedings were not barred by limitation. It reasoned that the amendment to Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, which extended the limitation period to six years, should be applied. The Court clarified that the deemed date of assessment being 30.06.2012 placed the matter under the post-amendment position. Regarding the second issue, the Court noted that while the contention on process loss/invisible loss was not explicitly dealt with in the impugned order, the petitioner had not adequately responded to other major defects raised in the pre-revision notices. The Court indicated it would confirm the order on other heads and remand only for the process loss/invisible loss issue. However, the petitioner's counsel opted to avail the alternative remedy of appeal.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.Sree Kaderi Ambal Mills Pvt. Ltd., filed four writ petitions challenging orders dated 31.05.2019 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Tallakulam Assessment Circle. These orders pertained to the tax periods 2007-08 to 2010-11. The assessments were initially finalized under Section 22(2) of the TNVAT Act. Following an inspection on 19.11.2014, pre-revision notices were issued. After the petitioner raised objections and was afforded a personal hearing, the impugned orders were passed. The petitioner argued that the proceedings were barred by limitation and that other contentions were not adequately addressed. The court noted that the matter had been remanded previously due to a lack of personal hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned proceedings, initiated by pre-revision notices dated 27.02.2018 for assessment years 2007-08 to 2010-11, are barred by limitation under Section 27(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, as it stood then? The petitioner argued that the earlier five-year limitation period should apply, expiring on 30.06.2017, making the proceedings initiated in 2018 time-barred. The petitioner relied on unreported decisions. The respondent (Revenue) contended that the proceedings were within the prescribed limitation period. 2. Whether the assessing authority failed to consider all contentions raised by the petitioner, particularly regarding process loss/invisible loss? The petitioner argued that only the limitation point was dealt with, and other objections were ignored. The respondent argued that the petitioner did not adequately respond to other defects mentioned in the pre-revision notices, and the issue of process loss/invisible loss represented a negligible value.