Chennai:
Tamil Nadu government on Friday justified its decision to issue Rs
2,400 crore commercial tax demand notices on Nokia India Private
Limited stating that the company did not furnish documents to
establish export sales.
Handsets manufactured in India but not exported would entail 4 per
cent Value Added Tax (VAT) payable to the state government.
Advocate-general A L Somayaji on Friday submitted before Justice B
Rajendran that in the absence of proof of exports sales worth more
than Rs 44,000 crore during three assessment years (2009-10, 2010-11
and 2011-12), the state government was constrained to issue notices to
Nokia.
The judge adjourned the hearing to April 1.
Earlier this week, Nokia filed three separate writ petitions
challenging the huge tax demands and claimed the orders were passed
without lending a ear to company's version and neither granting an
opportunity to it to furnish all relevant documents.
In its petition, Nokia has challenged the assessment order as well as
notice of final assessment and demand (under Rule 5 (6) of the Central
Sales Tax (Tamil nadu) Rules) issued under section 13 (3) and (4) of
the Central sales Tax Act both dated February 28, 2014.
On state government claim that despite given an opportunity Nokia
failed to furnish documents to prove export sales, and thereby claim
VAT exemption, the mobile handset firm said it had submitted only
sample documents because exports sales data were voluminous.
"Without giving any further opportunity to Nokia, the deputy
commissioner passed the impugned order on February 28 in a biased
manner," Nokia said.
Somayaji, in his arguments stated that though notices were sent for
all the three assessment years, Nokia chose to respond only to 2009-10
notice.
He also rejected Nokia's claim that it was entitled to personal
hearing under Section 22(4) of VAT Act. "It was a case of reopening of
assessment as provided for under Section 27, and there was no room for
personal hearing in the provision," he said.
Opposing interim order of stay, Somayaji said that Nokia has admitted
it is under severe financial difficulties. In view of the admission,
it is important that the court should not grant any interim order of
stay
Tamil Nadu government on Friday justified its decision to issue Rs
2,400 crore commercial tax demand notices on Nokia India Private
Limited stating that the company did not furnish documents to
establish export sales.
Handsets manufactured in India but not exported would entail 4 per
cent Value Added Tax (VAT) payable to the state government.
Advocate-general A L Somayaji on Friday submitted before Justice B
Rajendran that in the absence of proof of exports sales worth more
than Rs 44,000 crore during three assessment years (2009-10, 2010-11
and 2011-12), the state government was constrained to issue notices to
Nokia.
The judge adjourned the hearing to April 1.
Earlier this week, Nokia filed three separate writ petitions
challenging the huge tax demands and claimed the orders were passed
without lending a ear to company's version and neither granting an
opportunity to it to furnish all relevant documents.
In its petition, Nokia has challenged the assessment order as well as
notice of final assessment and demand (under Rule 5 (6) of the Central
Sales Tax (Tamil nadu) Rules) issued under section 13 (3) and (4) of
the Central sales Tax Act both dated February 28, 2014.
On state government claim that despite given an opportunity Nokia
failed to furnish documents to prove export sales, and thereby claim
VAT exemption, the mobile handset firm said it had submitted only
sample documents because exports sales data were voluminous.
"Without giving any further opportunity to Nokia, the deputy
commissioner passed the impugned order on February 28 in a biased
manner," Nokia said.
Somayaji, in his arguments stated that though notices were sent for
all the three assessment years, Nokia chose to respond only to 2009-10
notice.
He also rejected Nokia's claim that it was entitled to personal
hearing under Section 22(4) of VAT Act. "It was a case of reopening of
assessment as provided for under Section 27, and there was no room for
personal hearing in the provision," he said.
Opposing interim order of stay, Somayaji said that Nokia has admitted
it is under severe financial difficulties. In view of the admission,
it is important that the court should not grant any interim order of
stay
No comments:
Post a Comment