Tvl. Kerala Package Products vs. The Asst., Commissioner(CT)-Ii

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner's representation filed under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, seeking rectification of the error in not considering their Input Tax Credit claim, was pending before the respondent. The respondent's counsel sought time to pass appropriate orders on this representation. Considering the limited scope of the prayer and the pendency of the representation, the Court did not delve into the merits of the tax dispute. Instead, it directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court disposed of the writ petition with this direction.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Kerala Package Products, is an assessee engaged in the business of corrugated boxes. For the CST assessment year 2015-2016, the petitioner reported a total turnover of Rs. 1,12,19,564/- and a taxable turnover of Rs. 70,62,955/-, after deducting Input Tax Credit (ITC) as per the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The respondent, the Assistant Commissioner (CT) – II, Virudhunagar, completed the assessment on 02.12.2016, accepting the reported turnover. However, in the subsequent order dated 16.03.2017, the respondent inadvertently failed to consider the petitioner's ITC claim, leading to a demand of Rs. 1,44,438/-. The petitioner filed a representation under Section 84 of the Act on 20.04.2017 seeking rectification of this error, which was pending.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent erred in not considering the petitioner's Input Tax Credit claim while passing the order dated 16.03.2017, thereby demanding an incorrect tax amount? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the respondent to consider their representation filed under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006? The petitioner argued that the respondent's order dated 16.03.2017 was erroneous due to the inadvertent failure to consider their legitimate Input Tax Credit claim, resulting in an incorrect demand. They contended that their representation filed under Section 84 of the Act sought to rectify this specific error. The respondent, through the learned Additional Government Pleader, acknowledged the pendency of the petitioner's representation and sought time to pass appropriate orders on merits.