MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Summons Can Be Issued to Dealers Post Deemed Assessment: Madras High Court Clarifies Scope Under TNVAT Act

25 December 2024 10:25 AM

By: sayum


Court dismisses writ petitions challenging the validity of summons issued for document production under Section 81 of the TNVAT Act, 2006. The Madras High Court has upheld the authority of the State Tax Officer to issue summons for document production under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax (TNVAT) Act, 2006. In a significant judgment delivered on April 30, 2024, Justice C. Saravanan clarified that the power to summon documents is not limited to third parties and can be exercised against dealers, even post the deemed completion of assessment under Section 22(2) of the TNVAT Act, 2006.

The case involved two writ petitions filed by M/s. V.R. Muthu & Bros. and M/s. V.V.V. and Sons Edible Oils Limited, challenging the summons issued by the State Tax Officer, Virudhunagar, under Form PP. The petitioners argued that such summons under Rule 16(1) of the TNVAT Rules, 2007, should apply only to third parties and not to assessees who have filed regular returns. They contended that their assessments for the year 2015-16 were deemed complete on October 31, 2016, under Section 22(2) of the TNVAT Act, 2006.

Justice Saravanan emphasized the broad scope of Section 81 of the TNVAT Act, 2006, which allows the assessing authority to summon any person, including dealers, for document production. "The power under Section 81 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 is wide and is not eclipsed by the power vested under Section 22(3) of the TNVAT Act, 2006," the judgment noted.

The court observed that Section 22(3) of the TNVAT Act mandates that up to 20% of assessments be selected for detailed scrutiny by the Commissioner using a stratified random sampling method. These cases, which include the petitioners, require further scrutiny regardless of deemed assessment status.

The judgment extensively analyzed the provisions of the TNVAT Act and Rules. Justice Saravanan stated, "Merely because the assessment is deemed to have been completed under Section 22 of TNVAT Act, 2006, ipso facto will not mean that an Assessing Officer cannot call for information from a dealer whose name features in the list under Section 22(3) of the Act."

"The power to issue summon to a witness and production of documents is very wide and would include a dealer. Under Section 81 of the Act, an Assessing Authority...shall, for the purposes of the Act, have all the powers conferred on a Court by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908," remarked Justice Saravanan​​.

The dismissal of the writ petitions reinforces the authority of the tax department to ensure compliance and accuracy in tax filings through the issuance of summons for document production. This judgment clarifies the extensive powers vested in tax authorities under the TNVAT Act, 2006, and underscores the importance of thorough scrutiny in tax assessments. The decision is expected to have significant implications for the procedural conduct of tax assessments and the scope of powers exercised by tax authorities in Tamil Nadu.

Date of Decision: April 30, 2024

Latest Legal News