2017 (1) TMI 1406 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Difference in the purchase turnover - impugned order based on the mismatch in the information available qua the sellers in the Departmental website and the information available in the returns filed by the petitioner - Held that - quite clearly, the respondent has proceeded with haste, as he has proceeded to pass the impugned order virtually on the same day, on which date the objections were received - Furthermore, the petitioner s submission that, no material was provided, also appears to be correct. The impugned orders are set aside. The respondent is, however, given liberty to redo the assessments. Before proceeding to pass fresh order of assessments - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Writ Petitions pertaining to five Assessment Years (A.Ys) - A.Y.2010-11; A.Y.2012-13; A.Y.2013-14; A.Y.2014-15; A.Y.2015-16.

Analysis:
The respondent passed separate orders for each Assessment Year on the same date after issuing notices to the petitioner. The petitioner filed objections before the orders were passed, but the respondent claimed to have received the objections only on the date of passing the orders. The impugned orders were based on discrepancies between the information from the Departmental website and the petitioner's returns, alleging a difference in purchase turnover.

The petitioner contended that no material was provided by the respondent to support the conclusion of discrepancies, contrary to established judgments of the Court. The respondent proceeded hastily, passing orders on the same day objections were received, and without providing necessary information to the petitioner. The Court agreed with the petitioner, noting the respondent's actions were against the principles set in previous judgments.

As a result, the Court set aside the impugned orders and granted the respondent the opportunity to redo the assessments. The respondent was instructed to provide the petitioner with all necessary information and details before conducting fresh assessments. The petitioner would then have the chance to file fresh objections based on the provided information before the respondent makes a decision.

Ultimately, the Writ Petitions were disposed of with no costs imposed, and connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed, ensuring a fair opportunity for the petitioner to respond to the allegations made by the respondent.