1998 (3) TMI 674 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the assessment order dated January 16, 1998.
2. Validity of the attachment of bank accounts on March 12, 1998.
3. Alleged violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution of India.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Assessment Order:
- The applicant company challenged the assessment order on the grounds of denial of reasonable opportunity to be heard, improper application of Section 45(2) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994, and wrongful rejection of the gross turnover shown in the returns.
- The Tribunal found that the company was duly notified of the hearing, but no representative appeared, nor was any petition for adjournment filed. The assessment was completed ex parte, and the Tribunal held that reasonable opportunity was given but not availed by the company.
- The Tribunal upheld the use of Section 45(2) for the assessment, as it was based on an enquiry report known to the company, making the assessment under this section competent.
- The Tribunal declined to address the factual dispute regarding the rejection of the gross turnover, stating that such matters should be considered by the appellate authority.

2. Validity of the Attachment of Bank Accounts:
- The attachment of the bank accounts was challenged as it was done during the pendency of a stay application.
- The Tribunal noted that the notice of demand was issued on February 2, 1998, with a payment deadline of March 10, 1998. The company failed to pay by this date, making the assessed dues recoverable.
- The Tribunal found that the attachment orders were issued on March 11, 1998, and served on March 12, 1998, before the filing of the appeal and stay application. Thus, the attachment was deemed proper and legal.
- The Tribunal distinguished the case from others cited by the applicant, noting that in those cases, coercive measures were taken while stay applications were pending, which was not the situation here.

3. Alleged Violation of Constitutional Articles:
- Although the applicants initially claimed violations of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution, no submissions were made regarding Articles 19(1)(g) and 265 during the hearing.
- The Tribunal did not find any violation of Article 14, as reasonable opportunity for hearing was provided.

Conclusion:
- The Tribunal upheld the assessment order and the attachment of bank accounts, finding no procedural or legal irregularities.
- The Tribunal directed the release of the bank accounts upon the deposit of the balance amount of the demand as security, pending the outcome of the stay application and appeal.
- The main application was disposed of without any order for costs.