M/s. East Coast Constructions & Industries Ltd. Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes)
VAT and Sales Tax
2018 (10) TMI 347 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – TMI
MADRAS HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 27-9-2018
W.P.No.29447 of 2008 And MP No.1 of 2008
CST, VAT & Sales Tax
Mr. K. Ravichandrabaabu J.
For the Petitioner : Mr.Joseph Prabakar
For the Respondents : Mr.M.Hariharan Additional Government Pleader (T)
ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 03.11.2008, revising the assessment in respect of assessment year 2004-05.
2. The petitioner is a Limited Company engaged in the business of Civil construction and a registered dealer under the second respondent. The assessment for the year 2004-05 under TNGST was completed and an order of assessment was passed by the second respondent on 15.11.2006, wherein the second respondent had allowed exemption of Rs. 1,80,16,025/-, representing value of building materials purchased in the cours
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
he petitioner, when the notice of proposal dated 11.06.2008 was issued to the petitioner.
Therefore, he contended that the impugned order was based on reasons extraneous to notice of proposal. On merits, the learned counsel contended that the petitioner is entitled to such exemption under Section 3B(2)(b) of the TNGST Act, 1959 and the Assessing Officer has dealt with in detail with regard to the eligibility of the petitioner to get such exemption, in his original order of assessment dated 15.11.2006. Therefore, he submitted that without there being any valid reason, such conclusion arrived by the Assessing Officer cannot be changed or altered by way of revision.
4.On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that when the petitioner was not entitled to exemption in respect of purchases of building materials effected through interstate sale, the Authority is entitled to revise the order of assessment granting such exemption.
He
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ilding materials for Rs. 1,80,16,025/- and Iron and Steel (Declared Goods) for Rs. 14,19,34,312/- were verified with relevant documents and found admissible. Having found so, the Assessing Officer has chosen to revise the assessment by issuing the notice of proposal dated 11.06.2008.
7. A careful perusal of the said notice would indicate that the same does not reveal any material details or particulars as to how the Assessing Officer proposed to disallow the exemption already granted in respect of purchases made through interstate sale to the tune of Rs. 1,80,16,025/-. Except stating that on examination of assessement on records, it is seen that turnover of Rs. 1,80,16,025/-, being the interest purchase of building materials, were wrongly allowed exemption, the said notice does not disclose as to what materials found in the assessment records had driven the Assessing Officer to make such proposal for disallowing the exemption.
8. Needless to state that the assessee will be in a posit
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
TC 204) is not applicable from the year 2002-03. The goods in question are general in nature and are readily available to any buyer and can be used by any dealer. It cannot be established that the goods are usable only to a particular contract and will not be fit for other works.”
9. Perusal of the above said findings rendered by the Assessing Officer would show that such reasonings were not referred in the form of proposal, when notice was issued on 11.06.2008. Needless to say that a reasoning in the order of assessment should emerge from the related grounds raised in the notice of proposal and not to be stated as the first time, while passing the order of assessment. In other words, the assessee cannot be put to surprise with certain reasons in the assessment order, when crux of such reasons, in the form of grounds, is not stated in the notice of proposal. At the same time, at this stage, this Court is not expressing any view on the correctness or otherwise of the reasons assigned b
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =