A.B. Selvanathan Chetty vs Assistant Commissioner (CT) (FAC)

T.S. Sivagnanam, J.�In all these writ petitions, the petitioners are registered dealers under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, on the file of the respondent. The impugned order in all these cases are orders of reassessment passed by the respondent under the provisions of the Act for different assessment years. The only ground on which the impugned orders have been challenged is on the ground that the validity of section 19(20) of the Act is yet to attain finality and the matter is now pending before the honourable Supreme Court in S.L.P. Nos. 34023 to 34026 of 2013.

The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in terms of section 23 of the Act, there is a procedure where the assessee claim identical question of law and is pending before the High Court or the Supreme Court, he is entitled to file a declaration before the assessing officer and the assessing officer may by order in writing either admit the claim of the assessee if satisfied that the question of law arising in the relevant case is identical with the question of law in the other case or reject the claim if not satisfied. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner should be granted liberty to file such a declaration under section 23 of the Act.

The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submitted that section 23 of the Act would have absolutely no application to the facts of the case since no case of the petitioner for any earlier assessment year is either pending before the High Court or the Supreme Court.

On a careful reading of section 23(1) it is seen that in cases where the assessee claims that any question of law arising in "his case" for an assessment year which is pending before the assessing authority is identical with the question of law arising in his case for another assessment year which is pending before the High Court or the Supreme Court, the assessee may furnish declaration to the assessing authority under section 23(1).

Admittedly, there is no case of the assessee pending for assessment year before the assessing authority in which an identical question of law is pending before the Supreme Court. In the light of the fact, there is no such issue pending in respect of the petitioner''s case for any earlier assessment year before the honourable Supreme Court, the question of invoking the power under section 23, does not arise. Therefore, the submission of the petitioner in this regard stands rejected. Having held so, the only other question which remains is whether the impugned order of assessment will be held to be bad in law for invoking section 19(20) of the Act. The Division Bench of this court in Jayam and Co. and Others Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (CT) and Others etc. etc., has upheld the validity of the said provision. In the light of the above, the prayer sought for in the writ petitions cannot be granted. Therefore, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.