Non-registration and failure to comply with statutory provisions preclude the benefit of presumptive taxation under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.

JUDGMENT

(Common Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the respondent in his proceedings of the assessment order in Rc.No.103/2016 B1 (2014-15 & 2015-16) dated 31.12.2018 quash the same and direct the respondent to pass fresh orders by following the decision of the High Court of Madras in W.P.Nos.6750 & 6751 of 2017 dated 04.07.2017 and also the directions and guidelines given by the Apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. M/s.Devendran Company reported in 103 STC 95 (SC) after providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.)

Common Order

1. The impugned orders of assessment relating to the periods 2014-15 and 2015-16 have been passed under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (in short 'Act'). The petitioner is in the second round of litigation and had approached this Court earlier in W.P.Nos.6750 & 6751 of 2017, challenging the orders passed initially, on the ground that they were incorrect as well as framed contrary to the principles of natural justice.

2. The aforesaid writ petitions had come to be allowed by order dated 04.07.2017 and the orders of assessment were set aside. A direction was issued to the respondent officer to furnish a copy of the proceedings of the enforcement officer dated 30.03.2016, after which the petitioner was to be heard, its objections considered and the assessment redone, in accordance with law.

3. Complying with the aforesaid order, the petitioner was called to the office of the respondent and given a copy of the VAT enforcement proposal. It was also offered an opportunity of personal hearing which it availed before the authority. A notice was issued to the petitioner thereafter and a response also received. The impugned order of assessment has come to be passed thereafter.

4. Thus, I find no merit in the ground of the petitioner to the effect that the principles of natural justice have been violated as I find that the Officer has adhered to the procedure for assessment, as well as the directions of this Court in order dated 04.07.2017.

5. On merits, the petitioner has not registered itself under the Act. No monthly returns have been filed by it for the periods in question. The Officers of the Enforcement Wing in the course of their inspection recorded statement in which the petitioner confirms that it has not registered itself under the Commercial Tax Act and the petitioner also confirms that it will remit the applicable tax, being 2%, in line with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act.

6. As regards the factum of non-registration, the petitioner expressed its willingness to compound the violation and the statement records that the violation was compounded and a sum of Rs.2000/- paid by cheque. It has been the submission of the petitioner at the time of assessment that the liability to tax for the periods in question, when it was unregistered, would only be 2% availing benefit of Section 6 of the Act.

7. Section 6 of the Act provides for the payment of tax at compounded rates for a works contractor and grants the benefit of presumptive taxation to a dealer. Thus, an assessment would be completed on a fixed percentage, being 2% in the cases of civil and civil maintenance works contracts and 5% in the case of other works contract, without the necessity for maintenance of books of accounts and verification of the same and benefit of input tax credit (ITC).

8. The petitioner relies on the following decisions of this Court in support of its submissions on the merits of claim in regard to rate of tax:

(i) M/s.T.Azhakesen Vs. the State of Tax Officer and Others, W.A.No.2262, 2263, 2264 & 2267 of 2021 dated 08.09.2021;

(ii) Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore Vs. M/s.Kikani Exports Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore, TC(A).No.330 of 2013 dated 09.09.2014;

(iii) K.Ramasamy Vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, W.P.No.12556 of 2006 dated 18.12.2017.

9. The que