Mere Mentioning of Wrong VAT Provision does not invalidate Order if Authority has Proper Jurisdiction: Madras HC [Read Order]

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court ruled that mere mentioning of a wrong value-added tax ( VAT ) Provision or non-mentioning of a provision does not invalidate an order if the court or statutory authority had the requisite jurisdiction to issue it.

Gingee Agricultural Producers Co-operative Marketing Society Limited, the petitioner was subjected to revised assessments for 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2011-12. The assessments were initially deemed complete under Section 22(2) of the TNVAT Act.

Master GST Notice Replies – Drafting 20 Notices, Including Appeals - Register Now

The tax authorities revisited these assessments after a few years, issuing notices under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax (TNVAT) Act, 2006. These notices were followed by fresh notices under Section 27(1)(a), which allows the state to revise deemed assessments if unaccounted turnover or other discrepancies are discovered.

The petitioner challenged revised assessment orders issued under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax (TNVAT) Act, 2006, arguing the assessments were time-barred and invalid due to incorrect citation of legal sections in notices.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the assessments were deemed complete under Section 22(2) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 and the notices for revision were issued after the six-year limitation period under Section 27(1)(a), making them invalid.

Further, the petitioner's counsel argued that the initial notices cited Section 84 instead of Section 27 of the TNVAT Act indicating a jurisdictional error. The petitioner’s counsel relied on various judgments where delayed and flawed notices were quashed.

On the other side, the respondent’s counsel argued that the authorities issued notices within the six-year limitation period under Section 27(1)(a) of the TNVAT Act. They explained that the incorrect citation of Section 84 was a typographical error, but the intent was clear, and the process was within the jurisdiction.

Master GST Notice Replies – Drafting 20 Notices, Including Appeals - Register Now

The respondent’s counsel submitted that the error in mentioning the section did not affect the validity of the notices or the assessments.

A single bench led by Justice C. Saravanan observed both side's arguments. The court stated that mere typographical or procedural errors in legal notices do not invalidate them if the correct legal intent is clear and the authorities acted within their jurisdiction. This principle was backed by the Supreme Court's Ruling in Ram Sunder Ram vs. Union of India.

The court noted that despite citing the wrong section, the notices intended to revise the assessments and levy penalties, and the revised assessments were issued within the statutory time limit, complying with the TNVAT Act's requirements.

Master GST Notice Replies – Drafting 20 Notices, Including Appeals - Register Now

Therefore, the court upheld the revised assessment order and the writ petition was dismissed.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates