2014 (7) TMI 1205 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of writ petition - Reopening of assessment - ex-parte order - The case of the Revenue was that as per the books of the petitioner after tallying the opening stock of raw materials the additional purchase of raw material, other incidental charges, etc., the stock transfer to the manufacturing arm, i.e., M/s. Basant Cables & Conductors Pvt. Ltd. was less than the total amount of production in all the years. Held that - Before us it is urged that the assessing officer erred in not granting any adjournment and granting a date to the assessee to approach the High Court. The order of the Commissioner of Taxes was passed on September 4, 2013. Thereafter notice was issued to the assessee on September 30, 2013. The assessee asked for a date and thereafter another date was given directing it to appear before the assessing officer on November 8, 2013. Again a date was prayed for and the matter was adjourned to December 16, 2013. Again a request for adjournment was made but it appeared that this was not allowed and the assessment order was passed. We are clearly of the view that the manner in which the assessee has acted does not entitle it to get any relief from this court. - In this case the assessing officer gave notices thrice to the assessee but it did not care to appear before the assessing officer and just kept asking for adjournments. We cannot condone this sort of behaviour of the assessee.- Petition dismissed - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Assessment of cost of production, Excise duty inclusion in cost of production, Denial of adjournment by assessing officer.

Assessment of cost of production:
The petitioner, a manufacturing unit, filed assessments for 1996-97 to 2004-05, which were reopened due to discrepancies in stock transfer to the marketing arm. The petitioner claimed the difference in production value was due to Cenvat credit on excise-paid raw materials. The assessing officer held excise duty as part of production cost. Appeals were filed, partly allowed, and remanded for reassessment.

Excise duty inclusion in cost of production:
The appellate authority directed the assessing authority to verify if excise duty on raw materials was included in cost of production, emphasizing no double counting. For 2003-04 and 2004-05, excise duty non-disclosure led to upheld tax demands. Cases from 1996-97 to 2002-03 were remanded for fresh assessment regarding excise duty inclusion.

Denial of adjournment by assessing officer:
The assessing officer issued notices for fresh assessment, and the petitioner sought adjournments to file a writ petition. The assessment was made in the absence of the petitioner, challenging the lack of adjournment. The court held that the petitioner's delay in approaching the court and repeated adjournment requests did not warrant relief. The court rejected the writ petitions, allowing the petitioner to file an appeal within 30 days with all raised grounds.