TVL. SRI VIGNESWARA GRANITES Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these writ petitions, assessment orders under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (the TNVAT Act) in respect of assessment years 2007-08 to 2014-15 are under challenge.

(2.) The petitioner is a partnership firm represented by Smt.Shanthi Selvaraj. Returns were filed by the petitioner for each of the above mentioned assessment years. Pursuant to an inspection undertaken by the enforcement wing officials, the petitioner received a notice dtd. 12/8/2016. Such notice dealt with about five defects. The focal point of challenge is defect No.3 relating to freight not reported and sold with under value. Upon receipt of the above mentioned notice, the petitioner submitted a reply dtd. 30/8/2016. In the reply, the alleged defect relating to freight was responded to by stating that freight charges incurred by the petitioner were accounted for in the books of accounts and that all payments were made by account payee cheques. It was further stated that the cost of purchase includes the cost of materials, labour charges and delivery charges at site. The petitioner contended that the computation in respect of freight charges in the notice under reply is not based on any material evidence, but entirely based on assumptions and presumptions. This was followed by a revised notice on 27/8/2018. Pursuant to a hearing, the orders impugned herein were issued on 5/6/2020.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the impugned assessment orders on two grounds. The first ground of challenge is that the re-assessment proceedings are barred by limitation as regards assessment years 2007-08 to 2010-11. By pointing out that the limitation period is six years in terms of Sec. 27 of the TNVAT Act, learned counsel submits that such proceedings could not have been initiated up to assessment year 2010-11. In this connection, he relies upon the revised notice dtd. 27/8/2018. As regards assessment year 2014-15, learned counsel submitted that there was a computational error in the assessment order, and, therefore, a rectification petition was filed. Although the computational error was rectified by order dtd. 5/6/2020, learned counsel submitted that the said order also proceeded on the basis of information gathered from the Internet and not on the basis of credible information indicating suppression of freight charges by the petitioner. Therefore, he submits that proceedings relating to assessment orders 2014-15 are also vitiated for the same reasons.