CEAT LIMITED Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr.M.Hariharan, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice for the respondent. Heard both. By consent, the writ petitions are taken up for joint disposal.

(2.) Since the impugned orders suffer from glaring errors, this Court is of the view that interest of the Revenue will be protected only if the matters are remanded to the respondent to decide some of the issues, which have not been properly dealt with by the respondent. In addition to that, there is a serious violation of the principles of natural justice.

(3.) The petitioner is a registered owner on the file of the respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The respondent issued notices dated 14.2017 for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 referring to the VAT audit conducted in the place of business of the petitioner during the period from 17.8.2016 to 26.8.2016. It was pointed out in the said notices dated 14.2017 that on verification of the records, it was noticed that the petitioner collected tax at 4%/5% for the sale of tyres, tubes and flaps instead of 12.5%/14.5% as per Sl.No.66 of Part C of First Schedule to the State Act with Code No.366. It was further pointed out that the petitioner reported the turnover as if the commodity falls under Entry 2067 'industrial inputs', for which, they should have produced relevant certificate for claiming concessional rate of tax at 4%. Thus, the respondent proposed to levy tax at the rate of 12.5% on the turnover of Rs.79,64,88,455/-, Rs.13,47,74,124/- and Rs.10,31,24,361/- respectively for the relevant assessment years. It was also pointed out in the said notices dated 14.2017 that the respondent proposed to levy penalty under Section 27(4) of the State Act for having filed incorrect and incomplete returns.