2015 (8) TMI 1307 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Rejection of application for settlement - Section 24B of the M.P. VAT Act - no opportunity was granted to the petitioner. - discretion in refusing the adjournment after more than 5-6 opportunities have been granted to him - Held that - on the ground of adjournment one or the other discretion in refusing the adjournment in the facts and circumstances of the case showing that the Authority has acted arbitrary or illegally refusing to grant one more opportunity had led that the Competent Authority shall be free to proceed the matter by refusing any further opportunity to the petitioner; therefore, it cannot be said that the Authority acted arbitrary or unreasonably. Accordingly, we see no reasons. Even, if the respondent were entitled to proceed exparte than they should have adverted all this prima facie that a specific case of multiplicity considered the transaction as indicated. The Authority should evaluate and have verified the entries made therein as to whether the settlement should be permitted or that a part a single entry repeated multiple times. Than the amount be inflated as the error shown in para 7-8 the calculation made by the Authority shall considered the same. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter was granted to proceed on 26.08.2014 but while deciding the question of permanent settlement, they were not considered or accepted or rejected by showing that the application have not been examined for settlement. In view of the above, the fact that the question of permanent settlement, it is to be remanded back to the Assessing Officer as to whether the reconsideration of petitioner is infact existing or not for examination to allow this petition and to quash the impugned; therefore, the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging assessment orders for various periods, rejection of application for settlement under Section 24 B of the M.P. VAT Act, lack of opportunity for defense, errors in assessment order, need for reconsideration of settlement, remand to Assessing Officer for further evaluation.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged assessment orders for different periods and the rejection of the settlement application under Section 24 B of the M.P. VAT Act. The first contention raised was the lack of proper defense opportunity due to the rejection of an adjournment request. The petitioner argued that the matter was proceeded with despite the non-availability of their counsel, leading to a violation of defense rights. However, the respondent contended that sufficient opportunities were provided, and the case proceeded ex parte due to repeated adjournments. The court found that multiple opportunities were granted, and the Authority acted within its discretion, thus rejecting the petitioner's claim of unfair treatment.

The second ground raised involved errors in the assessment order, specifically regarding the inflation of turnover due to multiple entries for a single transaction. The petitioner submitted detailed submissions and documents highlighting these errors, which were not considered adequately during the settlement process. The court noted that the Settlement Commissioner should have evaluated these errors before proceeding ex parte. It was deemed necessary for the Assessing Officer to reexamine the errors and consider the petitioner's submissions for a fair settlement decision. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for proper evaluation.

In conclusion, the court directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the matter in accordance with the law, taking into account the errors highlighted by the petitioner. The petitioner was instructed to appear with relevant documents, and the Assessing Officer was tasked with concluding the matter promptly. The petition was disposed of with these directions for further proceedings, ensuring a fair evaluation of the settlement application and assessment orders.