Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
M. JAICHANDREN
M/s. Sakthi Engineering Constructions
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner (CT)
Writ Petition Nos.1035 & 1036 to 1038 of 2012 & M.P.No.1 & 1+1+1 of 2012
Decided On :Decided On : 24-01-2012
Assessment Procedure - Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - The court set aside the revised assessment order as the respondent did not follow the prescribed procedures under Section 27 of the Act, and directed the respondent to pass an original assessment order based on the petitioner's returns for the assessment year 2006-2007 before considering a revised assessment order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the revised assessment order passed by the respondent before the passing of the original assessment order for the assessment year 2006-2007.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondent to pass an original assessment order based on the petitioner's returns, and subsequently consider a revised assessment order if necessary, following the procedures prescribed under Section 27 of the Act.
Issues: Validity of the revised assessment order and compliance with assessment procedures under the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.
Ratio Decidendi: The respondent must adhere to the prescribed procedures under Section 27 of the Act for the revision of assessment orders.
Final Decision: The writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. The respondent is directed to pass an original assessment order based on the petitioner's returns for the assessment year 2006-2007, and subsequently consider a revised assessment order if necessary, following the procedures prescribed under Section 27 of the Act.
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent.
2. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that even before the passing of the original assessment order, based on the returns filed by the petitioner, for the assessment year 2006-2007, the impugned revised assessment order had been passed. As such, it is clear that the respondent had not followed the procedures prescribed, under Section 27 of the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, for the revision of the assessment.
3. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents have not refuted the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
4. In such circumstances, this Court finds it fit to set aside the impugned order of the respondent, dated 15.12.2011, making it clear that it would be open to the respondent to pass an original assessment order, as per Section 22 of the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, based on the returns filed by the petitioner, for the assessment year 2006-2007. Thereafter, it would be open to the respondent to pass a revised assessment order, if the respondent finds it necessary, as per the provisions of Section 27 of the said Act, by following the procedures prescribed therein. The writ petition is ordered, accordingly. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
