SARAVANA INTERNATIONAL Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) PANRUTI (TOWN)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Assessee, aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 05.07.2019 dismissing the writ petition filed by the Assessee on the ground of availability of alternative remedy, has filed this present intra Court appeal.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant Assessee Mr.V.Sundareswaran submitted that the Assessee, for the assessment period 2016-17 could not furnish the audit report as required by the newly inserted provisions in the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'TNVAT Act') in Section 63A of the Act in prescribed Form No.'WW' for the said assessment period and for which reason, the assessing authority viz., the Assistant Commissioner, Panruti Town, passed the impugned 'best judgment assessment order' dated 01.02.2018, enhancing the taxable turnover by 50% and imposed additional tax at 14.5% thereon. He submitted that besides imposing the tax on such enhanced turnover, the assessing authority in the order dated 04.06.2018, had also imposed the prescribed penalty under the said provisions of 63A(2) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 to the extent of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) for not filing of said Audit Report which the Assessee duly paid after the assessment order was passed by the assessing authority.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant Assessee further submitted that being aggrieved by the said 'best judgment assessment' by which the assessing authority arbitrarily enhanced the taxable turnover by 50% without any rhyme or reason, the assessee preferred the present Writ Petition before the learned Single Judge, who has however dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedyby way of departmental appeal to the assessee. He relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of "M/s.Nithra Furniture -vs- Assistant Commissioner (CT)" decided in W.A.Nos.1148 and 1149 of 2015 dated 11.08.2015, in which the delayed filing of prescribed Audit Report in Form 'WW' was condoned by the Division Bench of this Court and the assessing authority was directed to pass a revised assessment order in that case. He therefore submitted that even though the power of the 'best judgment assessment' prescribed under Section 22(4) of the Act could be invoked by the assessing authority in such a case, but that did not empower him to pass an arbitrary and high pitched assessment order in the case of the assessee, simply enhancing the taxable turnover by 50% only for the reason of not filing the Audit Report. This he submits, amounts to double jeopardy, enhanced tax liability and penalty for the same violation.