Tvl. J.F. International VS Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

This Writ Petition challenges the assessment order dated 08.11.2019, asserting it as arbitrary, illegal, and a clear violation of natural justice principles. Mr. B. Rooban, representing the petitioner, and Mrs. J. Padmavathi Devi, the Special Government Pleader for the respondents, were heard on the matter.

This Writ Petition challenges the assessment order issued by the second respondent on 08.11.2019, asserting it to be arbitrary, illegal, and a clear violation of natural justice principles. Mr. B. Rooban, representing the petitioner, argued against the order, while Mrs. J. Padmavathi Devi, the learned Special Government Pleader, appeared for the respondents. The petitioner contends that in response to the pre-assessment notice dated 16.10.2019, a comprehensive reply was sent on 18.10.2019, outlining various objections.

Writ Petition challenges assessment order of 08.11.2019, alleging arbitrariness, illegality, and violation of natural justice. Petitioner contends pre-assessment objections were submitted on 18.10.2019, emphasizing readiness to present accounts and valid GSTR-3B claims. Despite multiple replies, petitioner asserts non-consideration in impugned order prompts petition. Counsel highlights petitioner’s consistent willingness to produce accounts, urging their pivotal role in proceedings.

This Writ Petition challenges the assessment order dated 08.11.2019 issued by the second respondent. The petitioner asserts that the order is blatantly arbitrary, illegal, and violates principles of natural justice. Representing the petitioner, Mr. B. Rooban argues that despite submitting detailed objections on 18.10.2019 in response to the pre-assessment notice of 16.10.2019, which included readiness to present accounting books and claims of eligible input tax credit under GSTR-3B returns, these submissions were disregarded in the assessment order. Consequently, the petitioner claims that their repeated offers to produce accounting records were ignored. The petitioner maintains that the assessment incorrectly alleges absence of accounting records and questions the authenticity of their input tax credit claims.

replies, the petitioner reiterated readiness to produce books of accounts and claimed only eligible input tax credit under GSTR-3B returns. Despite this, the impugned assessment order allegedly disregarded these submissions, asserting the petitioner failed to maintain books of accounts genuinely. The petitioner challenges this order as arbitrary and violating natural justice principles. During proceedings, petitioner’s counsel highlighted repeated submissions and readiness to comply, contrasting with respondent’s contention that objections were considered and urging statutory appeal over writ jurisdiction. The court reviewed both sides, examining submissions and the assessment order, but the case remains unresolved.

This Writ Petition challenges the assessment order issued by the second respondent on 08.11.2019, alleging it to be arbitrary, illegal, and in violation of natural justice principles. Mr. B. Rooban, representing the petitioner, argued that despite the petitioner’s timely and detailed responses to pre-assessment notices, asserting readiness to produce accounts and claiming only eligible input tax credits under GSTR-3B, these were disregarded in the assessment. The petitioner contends that the assessment erroneously claimed no maintenance of accounts and questioned the genuineness of tax credit claims. In response, Mrs. J. Padmavathi Devi, Special Government Pleader for the respondents, argued that the objections were duly considered in the assessment and suggested the petitioner pursue statutory appeals rather than a writ under Article 226. She highlighted the petitioner’s own acknowledgment of lost accounts, casting doubt on claims of readiness to produce them. The Court reviewed the assessment and petitioner’s objections, noting discrepancies in the assessment’s reflection of statements allegedly made by the petitioner. Reference was made to precedent emphasizing the Assessing Officer’s obligation to independently assess statements.

This Writ Petition challenges the assessment order dated 08.11.2019 issued by the second respondent. The petitioner contends that the order is arbitrary, illegal, and violates natural justice principles. Represented by Mr. B. Rooban, the petitioner argues that despite responding to pre-assessment notices with detailed objections, which included readiness to produce accounts and claiming eligible input tax credit under GSTR-3B returns, these were disregarded in the assessment. The petitioner asserts that the assessment erroneously claims non-maintenance of accounts and challenges the validity of these claims.

Mrs. J. Padmavathi Devi, representing the respondents, argues that the objections were considered and advises that any appeal should follow statutory procedures under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, rather than Article 226 of the Constitution of India. She contests the petitioner’s claim of willingness to produce accounts, citing a police complaint about lost records.

The Court reviews the assessment order and petitioner’s objections, noting discrepancies between the petitioner’s statements and the findings in the assessment. The petitioner cites legal precedent where official statements should be independently verified, challenging the blind acceptance of statements made during inspections without valid reasons.

In conclusion, the Court considers the petitioner’s repeated assertions of readiness to produce accounts, which were allegedly ignored in the assessment, and acknowledges legal precedents requiring independent verification of statements made during inspections.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: