M/S Yentop Manickam Edible vs. The Commercial Tax Officer

Held

The Court held that the impugned notice dated 07.03.2013, issued under Section 27(4)(i) of the TN VAT Act, 2006, was indeed premature. The Court observed that as per Section 22(2) of the TN VAT Act, 2006, if no assessment order is passed by the Assessing Authority, the dealer is deemed to have been assessed after the lapse of six months, which in this case would be 31st October 2013. Since the notice was issued on 07.03.2013, it was issued before the deemed assessment date. Furthermore, the Court noted that the notice considered turnover for a partial period (April 2012 to January 2013) and was issued in piecemeal, making it unsustainable. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned notices. However, it clarified that the respondent authority was at liberty to issue a fresh notice, incorporating turnover for the entire assessment year 2012-2013, after the deemed assessment date of 31.10.2013. The petitioners were directed to file objections and cooperate, and the Assessing Authority was mandated to provide an opportunity for a personal hearing before passing a final order.

Facts

The petitioners, M/s. Yentop Manickam Edible Oil (P) Limited and M/s. Manickavel Edible Oil (P) Limited, are dealers in edible oil. For the assessment year 2012-13, the Commercial Tax Officer-I, Virudhunagar Assessment Circle, issued revision notices on 07.03.2013. These notices, which considered turnover and input tax credit claims up to January 2013, are challenged by the petitioners. The petitioners argue that the notices are premature as assessment orders had not yet been passed and the period for deemed assessment had not lapsed. The respondent authority contended that the notices were issued under Section 25 of the TN VAT Act, 2006, to reverse input tax credit claimed against Form F declarations without proper reversal, as required by Section 19(4) and Section 21 of the Act.

Key Issues

1. Whether the notice dated 07.03.2013, issued under Section 27(4)(i) of the TN VAT Act, 2006, is premature, considering that no assessment order has been passed and the period for deemed assessment under Section 22(2) of the Act has not lapsed? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioners argued that the notice was premature. They contended that as per Section 22(2) of the TN VAT Act, 2006, dealers are deemed to have been assessed after a lapse of six months from the end of the relevant period. For the assessment year 2012-13, this meant they would be deemed assessed on 31.10.2013. However, the respondent issued the notice on 07.03.2013, which was prior to this date and therefore unsustainable. They also argued that the notice considered only a partial period (April 2012 to January 2013) and was issued in piecemeal. Respondent's Contention: The respondent argued that the notice was issued under Section 25 of the TN VAT Act, 2006, to reverse input tax credit claimed against Form F declaration, as per Section 19(4) of the Act. They contended that the notice was valid and in accordance with law, as the petitioners had not reversed the input tax credit as prescribed under Section 21 read with Section 19(4) of the Act.