M\/s. Sukumar Welding Works Versus The Special Committee (U\/s 16-D of TNGST Act), The Assistant Commissioner (CT)
VAT and Sales Tax
2017 (10) TMI 182 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – TMI
MADRAS HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 5-9-2017
W. P. Nos.29518 & 29519 of 2010 M.P.Nos.2 and 2 of 2010
CST, VAT & Sales Tax
T. S. Sivagnanam, J.
\nFor the Petitioner : Ms.R.Hemalatha
\nFor the Respondents : Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai
\nORDER
\nHeard Ms.R.Hemalatha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
\n2. The petitioner in both these writ petitions has challenged the order passed by the Special Committee under Section 16-D of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 ( TNGST Act in short). Since the petitioner approached the Special Committee seeking clarification in respect of assessments for the years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 under the TNGST Act, two separate orders have been passed rejecting the applications, w<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n and the Joint Commissioner directed the second respondent to implement their report and to redo the assessment for both the assessment years. This ultimately led to passing of the assessment orders dated 27.04.2009 and 29.04.2009 for the two assessment years, 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 respectively. The petitioner immediately moved applications before the Special Committee under Section 16-D of the TNGST Act. The Special Committee, by order dated 17.09.2009, rejected the applications as the petitioner did not appear for several hearings. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed writ petitions before this Court in W.P.Nos.20849 and 20850 of 2009 and those writ petitions were allowed by a common order dated 22.10.2009 setting aside the order passed by the Special Committee dated 17.09.2009 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Once again the Special Committee has rejected the petitions by way of passing the impugned order. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n for and examine the records of the assessing authority in respect of any proceeding or order under sub-section (2) or (3) of Section 12 or sub-section (1) or (2) of Section 16. If such proceeding or order is passed in violation of the provisions of the Act or rules made thereunder or without following the principles of natural justice, the orders may be called for and scrutinised on merit, the Committee has the authority to pass such orders as it deems fit including directing assessing authority to make a fresh assessment. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n n both the writ petitions has sought for quashing the order passed by the Special Committee and has not specifically challenged the orders of assessment dated 27.04.2009 and 29.04.2009. In any event, the orders of assessment would merge with the order passed by the Special Committee. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Sukumar Welding Works Versus The Special Committee (U\/s 16-D of TNGST Act), The Assistant Commissioner (CT)VAT and Sales Tax2017 (10) TMI 182 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – TMIMADRAS HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 5-9-2017W. P. Nos.29518 & 29519 of 2010 M.P.Nos.2 and 2 of 2010 CST, VAT & Sales TaxT. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the … Continue reading “M\/s. Sukumar Welding Works Versus The Special Committee (U\/s 16-D of TNGST Act), The Assistant Commissioner (CT)”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8080","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8080","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=8080"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8080\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=8080"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=8080"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=8080"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is evidentl<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n … … …
\n5.Going by the very contention that there was a deviation proposal from the assessing authority, considering the fact that the petitioner had challenged the assessment as an arbitrary one, as a super regional sits as a corrective mechanism either suo motu or on an application to correct assessments that are in violation of the provisions of the Act. In the circumstances, whatever be the merits of the contentions of the petitioner, when the aggrie<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n6. Therefore, this Court would be well within its jurisdiction to quash the assessment proceedings as well, with a direction to the assessing officer to redo the assessments with an open independent mind, uninfluenced by any report given by the Enforcement Wing or the direction given by the Joint Commissioner. This procedure alone would meet the ends of justice.
\n7. For the above reasons, the writ petitions are allowed and the order passed by the Special Committee impugned in these writ petitions are set aside. Consequently, the orders of assessment passed by the second respondent for the assessment years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 under the TNGST Act dated 27.04.2009 and 29.04.2009 are set aside and the mat<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n