M/s SSPDL Interserve (P) Ltd., vs The State Tax Officer

W.P.Nos.21357, 21360, 21362 & 21364 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON: 22-09-2026
DELIVERED ON: 26-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
W.P.Nos.21357, 21360, 21362 & 21364 of 2022
and W.M.P.Nos.20355, 20359, 20363 & 20366 of 2022
{CNR:HCMA011238072022}
M/s SSPDL Interserve (P) Ltd.,
(now known as M/s SSPDL Infractech Private
Limited),
rep by its Deputy General Manager-Accounts,
No.11, Sir Thiyagaraya Road,
Chennai-600 017.
..Petitioner(s)
in all cases
Vs
The State Tax Officer
Nandanam Assessment Circle,
Chennai-600 028.
..Respondent(s)
in all cases
Common Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying to issue Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the
respondent in his proceedings in TIN/33341582799/2011-12,
TIN/33341582799/2012-13, TIN/33341582799/2013-14 and
TIN/33341582799/2014-15 quash the assessment orders dated 20.07.2022,
24.06.2022 and 23.06.2022 passed therein.
Page 1 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 02:36:26 pm )

W.P.Nos.21357, 21360, 21362 & 21364 of 2022
For Petitioner(s)
in all cases:
Mr.P.V.Sudakar
For Respondent(s)
in all cases:
Mr.B.Sivaraman,
Government Advocate (Tax)
COMMON ORDER
The present writ petitions have been filed challenging the orders passed
by the respondent in his proceedings dated 20.07.2022, 24.06.2022 and
23.06.2022.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
2.1. The petitioner is a works contractor and is a registered dealer under
the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “the
TNVAT Act”) on the file of the respondent. According to the petitioner, it had
executed works contracts in the State of Tamil Nadu as well as in other States.
During the assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15, apart from executing original
works, the petitioner had also executed sub-contract works for its group
company, namely, M/s.SSPDL Infrastructure Developers Private Limited,
which was also a registered dealer under the TNVAT Act on the file of the State
Tax Officer, Pondy Bazaar Assessment Circle.
2.2. According to the petitioner, tax was liable to be deducted at source
(TDS) from the payments made towards the execution of works contracts at the
Page 2 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 02:36:26 pm )

W.P.Nos.21357, 21360, 21362 & 21364 of 2022
rate of 2% or 4%, depending upon the nature of the works contract. The
petitioner further states that an application could be made under Section 13(1)
(c) of the TNVAT Act seeking exemption from deduction of tax at source and
that no deduction was required to be made where the dealer produced a
certificate in Form S issued by the Assessing Authority, certifying that there
was no liability to pay tax or that the tax payable under Section 5 of the TNVAT
Act had already been paid.
2.3. It is further stated that, where tax is deducted at source, the amount
so deducted is required to be remitted to the jurisdictional Assessing Authority
in Form R and a certificate in Form T evidencing such deduction is required to
be issued to the contractor, as contemplated under Section 13(2) of the TNVAT
Act.
2.4. According to the petitioner, upon furnishing the certificate in Form T,
as contemplated under Section 13(4) of the TNVAT Act, the amount of tax
deducted at source and remitted to the Government is liable to be adjusted
towards the tax liability of the dealer.
Page 3 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 02:36:26 pm )

W.P.Nos.21357, 21360, 21362 & 21364 of 2022
2.5. In respect of payments received for works contracts executed for
third parties, tax was deducted at source by the respective principals. However,
in respect of payments received from its group company towards the execution
of sub-contract works, the petitioner had obtained and produced certificates in
Form S and, consequently, no TDS was deducted for the assessment years
2011-12 to 2014-15. The petitioner claims to have filed its monthly returns and
remitted the appropriate tax after adjusting the available input tax credit and the
TDS amounts, wherever applicable.
2.6. It is the further case of the petitioner that, upon filing the returns in
the prescribed manner, together with the requisite documents and proof of
payment of tax, the assessments stood deemed to have been completed in terms
of Section 22(2) of the TNVAT Act. Accordingly, the petitioner claims that, the
assessments for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15
stood deemed to have been completed on 31.10.2012, 31.10.2013, 31.10.2014
and 31.10.2015 respectively. The petitioner further states that the said returns
were accepted and the relevant records were maintained by the Assessing
Authority. The petitioner had also filed audit reports in Form WW for the
assessment years 2012-13 and 2014-15.
Page 4 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 02:36:26 pm )

W.P.Nos.21357, 21360, 21362 & 21364 of 2022
2.7. Subsequently, the respondent initiated proceedings under Section 27
of the TNVAT Act, and passed the impugned assessment orders dated
23.06.2022 for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15, the order dated
24.06.2022 for the assessment year 2012-13 and the order dated 20.07.2022 for
the assessment year 2011-12.
3. Mr.P.V.Sudakar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in all the
writ petitions, submitted that the respondent could initiate proceedings under
Section 27(1) of the TNVAT Act only in respect of escaped turnover or wrong
availment of input tax credit and that such proceedings were required to be
initiated within the period of six years prescribed under the said provision.
According to the learned counsel, any proceedings initiated beyond the said
period would be barred by limitation.
3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the assessments for the
assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 stood deemed to have been completed on
31.10.2012, 31.10.2013, 31.10.2014 and 31.10.2015 respectively. He submitted
that the notices issued by the respondent on 09.03.2022 and 25.03.2022 and the
consequential impugned assessment orders were beyond the period of six years
prescribed under Section 27(1) of the TNVAT Act and, therefore, the impugned
orders were liable to be set aside on the ground of limitation.
Page 5 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 02:36:26 pm )

W.P.Nos.21357, 21360, 21362 & 21364 of 2022
4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Tax) appearing for the
respondent in all the writ petitions submitted that certain discrepancies had been
noticed in the returns filed by the petitioner and, therefore, a notice dated
25.03.2022 was issued calling upon the petitioner to submit its objections.
According to the learned Government Advocate, the impugned orders were
passed after considering the materials available on record and the objections
submitted by the petitioner.
4.1. Learned Government Advocate further pointed out that, insofar as the
claim of input tax credit was concerned, the petitioner had not furnished the
requisite supporting documents, including purchase particulars containing the
names of the dealers, PIN details, purchase ledger accounts and purchase
invoices. It is further submitted that the petitioner had addressed a letter dated
01.03.2022 to the respondent seeking copies of the assessment orders for the
assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15. Upon examining the records pursuant to
the said request, the respondent noticed certain discrepancies in the returns filed
by the petitioner for the respective assessment years. Consequently, notices
were issued to the petitioner and, thereafter, the impugned assessment orders
came to be passed.
Page 6 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 02:36:26 pm )

W.P.Nos.21357, 21360, 21362 & 21364 of 2022
4.2. The respondent has also filed a counter-affidavit. In the counter-
affidavit filed by the respondent, the averments contained in paragraph 4 thereof
are extracted hereunder:
“4.It is submitted that the Petitioner TVL SSPDL
Interserve (P) Limited now renamed as TvI. SSPDL
Infra Tech Private Limited at No.11, Sir Thyagaraya
Road, Chennai -17 are works contractors on the file of
this office.
For the assessment years from 2011-12 to
2014-15, they were deemed to have been assessed
under Section 22 (2) of the TNVAT Act 2006 based on
the monthly returns filed by them on 31-10-2012, 31-
10-2013, 31-10-2014 and 31-10-2015 respectively
In their letter dated 01-03-2022, the dealers had
stated that their contractor TvI.SSPDL Infrastructure
Developer Private Limited who is also a registered
dealer in Pondy Bazaar Assessment Circle with
TIN/33931582620 has applied for refund of WCT
deducted by their client. In order to refund the WCT,
the Assessing Officer of the Pondy Bazaar Assessment
Circle directed us to obtain the sub-contractor i.e.,
SSPDL Infra Tech Private Limited assessment order
for the period from 2011-12 to 2014-15.
The dealers have therefore now furnished the
details of turnover and tax paid and requested for
Page 7 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 02:36:26 pm )

W.P.Nos.21357, 21360, 21362 & 21364 of 2022
copies of the assessment orders for all the year from
2011-12 to 2014-15.
The turnover details now furnished by the
dealers have been verified with respect to Balance
sheet of the respective years which revealed certain
omission and commission. After issuing notices to the
dealers, revised orders were passed
Aggrieved by the above revised orders, the
dealer filed Writ Petitions before the Hon'ble High
Court of Madras for all the years from 2011-12 to
2014-15.”
4.3. It is contended by the learned Government Advocate appearing for
the respondent that the petitioner had failed to furnish the particulars sought by
the respondent in respect of the turnover and tax paid. Instead, the petitioner had
sought copies of the assessment orders for the respective assessment years from
2011-12 to 2014-15. It is therefore contended that, in the absence of the
requisite particulars, the respondent proceeded to pass the impugned orders on
the basis of the materials available on record.
4.4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent
placed reliance on the order of this Court in R. Vijayalakshmi v. The Assistant
Commissioner (ST) in W.P.Nos.17289, 17291, 17295 and 17297 of 2021, dated
19.02.2024. In the said decision, the learned Single Judge considered the
Page 8 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 02:36:26 pm )

W.P.Nos.21357, 21360, 21362 & 21364 of 2022
applicability of the limitation prescribed under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act in
the context of deemed assessment under Section 22(2) of the TNVAT Act. In
paragraph 23 of the said order, the learned Single Judge held as follows:
“23. If the returns filed by the dealer under
Section 21 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act,
2006 read with rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added
Tax Act, 2007 were either incorrect or incomplete
without the prescribed documents and proof of
payment of tax, question of the assessment being
treated as deemed to have been completed in terms of
the amendment to Section 22 of the Tamil Nadu Value
Added Tax Act, 2006 vide Tamil Nadu Act 23 of 2012
with effect from 19.6.2012 on the date specified in sub-
section 2 to section 22 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added
Tax Act, 2006 on 31.10.2018 and on 13.6.2012 for the
assessment years 2006-7 to 2010-11 rule 8 (9) and rule
8 (10) would not arise read with Rule 8(10) of the
Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007. Only where
an assessee has filed the return in the prescribed form
which were accompanied with prescribed documents
and proof of payment of tax, assessment can be deemed
to be completed. As per rule 8 (9) of Tamil Nadu Value
Added Tax Rules, 2007, only where a registered dealer
is deemed to have been assessed under the Act, 2006,
assessing authority is not required to issue any
assessment order or intimation to the dealer.”
4.5. In the aforesaid decision, the learned Single Judge has also drawn a
comparative distinction between Sections 22 and 25 of the TNVAT Act. The
Page 9 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 02:36:26 pm )

W.P.Nos.21357, 21360, 21362 & 21364 of 2022
legal position that emerges from the said decision is that the limitation
prescribed under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act would apply where the
assessment is deemed to have been completed in accordance with Section 22(2)
of the TNVAT Act. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner had
filed the returns in the prescribed manner, along with the requisite documents
and proof of payment of tax. Therefore, the assessment stood deemed to have
been completed in terms of Section 22(2) of the TNVAT Act. It is only
pursuant to the letter dated 01.03.2022 submitted by the petitioner, that the
respondent appears to have examined the records and issued the notice dated
25.03.2022 alleging certain discrepancies. However, the mere fact that the
petitioner had submitted the said letter on 01.03.2022 cannot have the effect of
extending, enlarging or reviving the statutory period of limitation prescribed
under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act. Once the assessment stood deemed to
have been completed under Section 22(2), any proceedings for assessment of
escaped turnover or wrong availment of input tax credit under Section 27 were
required to be initiated within the period prescribed therein.
5. The only question that arises for consideration in these writ petitions is
whether the proceedings initiated by the respondent under Section 27 of the
TNVAT Act are barred by limitation. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had
filed the returns accompanied by the prescribed documents and proof of
payment of tax and, consequently, the assessments were deemed to have been
Page 10 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 02:36:26 pm )

W.P.Nos.21357, 21360, 21362 & 21364 of 2022
completed in terms of Section 22(2) of the TNVAT Act. In such circumstances,
the power of the respondent to reopen the assessment under Section 27 of the
TNVAT Act is subject to the period of limitation prescribed therein.
Admittedly, the impugned assessment orders dated 23.06.2022, 24.06.2022 and
20.07.2022 relating to the said assessment years which were beyond the period
of six years prescribed under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act. Therefore, the
impugned proceedings are liable to be held as barred by limitation.
6. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent would
contend that the proceedings were initiated pursuant to the petitioner’s letter
dated 01.03.2022, whereby the petitioner had sought copies of the assessment
orders relating to the assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15. However, the said
contention cannot be accepted. The letter dated 01.03.2022 was only a
communication submitted by the petitioner seeking the relevant assessment
records. Such communication cannot operate as an extension of the statutory
period of limitation prescribed under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act. The
jurisdiction conferred upon the Assessing Authority under Section 27 of the
TNVAT Act must be exercised within the period prescribed by the statute and
cannot be enlarged by consent, correspondence or conduct of the dealer.
Therefore, merely because the petitioner had addressed the letter dated
01.03.2022, the respondent could not have initiated proceedings under Section
27 of the TNVAT Act after the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation.
Page 11 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 02:36:26 pm )

W.P.Nos.21357, 21360, 21362 & 21364 of 2022
7. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered
view that the impugned proceedings initiated by the respondent under Section
27 of the TNVAT Act were beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the
statute. Consequently, the respondent lacked jurisdiction to pass the impugned
assessment orders.
8. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 23.06.2022, 24.06.2022 and
20.07.2022 are hereby set aside. The writ petitions are allowed. There shall be
no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are
closed.
26-10-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
PAM
Page 12 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 02:36:26 pm )

W.P.Nos.21357, 21360, 21362 & 21364 of 2022
To
The State Tax Officer
Nandanam Assessment Circle,
Chennai-600 028.
Page 13 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 02:36:26 pm )

W.P.Nos.21357, 21360, 21362 & 21364 of 2022
N.SENTHILKUMAR J.
PAM
A pre-delivery Common Order in
W.P.Nos.21357, 21360, 21362 & 21364 of 2022
and W.M.P.Nos.20355, 20359, 20363 & 20366 of 2022
26-10-2026
Page 14 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 02:36:26 pm )