Tvl.Sri Kailash Chemicals vs. The State Tax Officer(Main)

Held

The Court held that the impugned assessment order dated May 23, 2018, was unsustainable as it was barred by limitation. The Court referred to Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, 2006, which stipulates that in cases of escaped turnover, action should be taken within a period of five years from the date of assessment. The original assessment order was passed on June 15, 2012. Therefore, any action for escaped turnover should have been initiated on or before June 15, 2017. However, the revision notice was issued on April 19, 2018, which is beyond the prescribed limitation period. The Court found that the initiation of proceedings was hit by limitation. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the writ petition was allowed. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.Sri Kailash Chemicals, is challenging an assessment order dated May 23, 2018, passed by the respondent, The State Tax Officer (Main), Tuticorin-III. The petitioner had filed their return for the tax period 2010-11, and the original assessment order was issued on June 15, 2012. Subsequently, a revision notice dated April 19, 2018, was issued for the reversal of Input Tax Credit due to a turnover mismatch. The petitioner did not file any objections, and the proposals were confirmed. The petitioner contends that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction as it is barred by limitation under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax (TNVAT) Act, 2006. The respondent conceded that the revision notice was barred by limitation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated May 23, 2018, passed by the respondent is barred by limitation under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, 2006, considering the original assessment order was passed on June 15, 2012? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order is barred by limitation as per Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, 2006, and relied on judicial decisions from this High Court in M.U.A Arumugaperumal and Sons Vs. Additional Commercial Tax Officer (FAC), Srivilliputhur and Tvl.India Cycle Stores Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Bazaar Assessment Circle, Salem. Respondent's contention: The respondent conceded that the revision notice issued was barred by limitation.