2022 (1) TMI 560 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of assessment order - input tax credit - failure to disclose the turnover in the return on the part of supplier - opportunity of personal hearing - case remitted back to the Assessing Officer to re-do the assessment once again after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - HELD THAT - It is noticed that Principal Secretary / Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has now issued the Circular No.5/2021, dated 24.02.2021. Ultimately, the purpose of remanding the case back to the respondent was to pass appropriate orders after ascertaining whether the petitioner was indeed entitled to Input Tax Credit or whether the respondent was justified in demanding the tax. There cannot be any embargo on the respondent from passing orders even though the time specified had lapsed and merely because the respondent either failed to approach the Court order by explaining the delay. Be that as it may, the case of the petitioner has to be considered on merits. If the petitioner had availed input tax credit validly based on the invoice issued by the supplier, question of demanding tax from the petitioner will not arise if other conditions stipulated under the Rules were complied by the petitioner. Merely because the supplier failed to disclose the turnover in the return would not mean the input tax credit would be required to be recovered from the respondent. There are no merits in these Writ Petitions. However, since the Principal Secretary / Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has now issued the Circular No.5/2021, dated 24.02.2021 to specifically deal with the situation, the case has to be examined in the light of the said Circular. - The respondent is directed to pass a speaking order on merits within a period of the four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of impugned Notices for Assessment Years 2012-2013 to 2016-2017.
2. Compliance with court orders regarding re-assessment and personal hearing.
3. Effect of time lapse on re-assessment proceedings.
4. Impact of GST implementation on reorganization and delays.
5. Consideration of Circular No.5/2021 in re-assessment process.

Analysis:
1. The Writ Petitions were filed to challenge the impugned Notices dated 04.07.2020 for Assessment Years 2012-2013 to 2016-2017. The petitioner sought to quash the notices as being without jurisdiction and contrary to principles laid down in a previous judgment of the Division Bench of the Court.

2. The petitioner had previously challenged assessment orders for the same years, which were set aside by the Court, directing the Assessing Officer to re-do the assessment after providing a personal hearing opportunity. The petitioner contended that the impugned orders were passed contrary to the timeline set by the Court in the earlier judgment.

3. The respondent justified the delay in passing orders due to the reorganization following GST implementation and the need to frame guidelines. The Court acknowledged the timing challenges but emphasized that the re-assessment proceedings should not be hindered by the lapse of time, especially when guidelines were now in place.

4. The Court noted the issuance of Circular No.5/2021 by the Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to address such situations. It directed the respondent to pass a speaking order on merits within four weeks, considering the Circular and ensuring the petitioner's opportunity to be heard.

5. Ultimately, the Court disposed of the Writ Petitions with the direction for re-assessment based on the Circular, emphasizing the importance of considering whether the petitioner validly availed input tax credit and complying with relevant rules.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, addressing the validity of notices, compliance with court orders, impact of time lapse, GST implementation challenges, and the relevance of the Circular in the re-assessment process.