THIRUNEELAKANDAR PAINT COMPANY Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing. The period of assessment involved in the present case is from 1st day of April, 2006 to 31st day of December, 2006. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioner filed monthly returns, in form A1, for the abovesaid period. After the receipt of the returns, filed by the petitioner, the respondent issued a notice, dated November 14, 2011. The petitioner also filed an objection to the above notice and requested the respondent to pass orders, as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act"). Thereafter, the respondent issued the impugned revised notice dated June 8, 2012, calling upon the petitioner to file objection within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, as per section 87A and rule 8(8)(a) of the Act, the revised notice, impugned herein, is illegal and without jurisdiction. The learned counsel also vehemently contended that, before the interregnum period, as stated above, the returns filed by the petitioner, should be accepted by the Revenue Officials, without calling for any accounts or particulars. But, the respondent, without following the provisions contemplated under section 87A of the Act and rule 8(8)(a), issued the revised notice, which is unsustainable.

(3.) The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submitted that section 87A of the Act contemplates that the assessment for the period from 1st day of April, 2006 to the 31st day of December, 2006, shall be on the basis of the returns filed by the petitioner. Therefore, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that a suitable direction may be given to the respondent to follow the provisions contemplated under the said Act.