2013 (4) TMI 123 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Revise the assessment orders adopting the higher compounded tax payable on the basis of inclusion of the purchase value of the opening stock - Held that - As the petitioner did not file any reply to the notices issued for revision or produce any documentary evidence against the proposal in the notices no substance in the challenge raised by the petitioner against Ext.P5 circular on the basis of which the assessment has been completed.

Summary

Issues:
Assessment based on compounding option, revision of assessment orders, inclusion of opening stock value, legality of notices, challenge against circular and assessment orders.

Analysis:
The petitioner, an FL-3 licensee, had their assessments for the years 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09 completed based on the compounding option they exercised. Subsequently, they received Ext.P1 series of notices proposing to revise the assessment orders by including the purchase value of the opening stock. The petitioner claimed to have informed the authorities about the illegality in the notices, but there was no evidence to support this claim.

The assessments were revised, and orders were issued as per Exts.P2 to P4, stating that the petitioner did not respond to the notices or provide any evidence against the proposed revisions. The petitioner challenged these orders along with Ext.P5 circular, which formed the basis of the assessments, arguing that the inclusion of the opening stock value was illegal.

The Government Pleader cited a judgment where a similar order including the opening stock value was upheld by the court. Considering the arguments presented, the court found no merit in the petitioner's challenge against Ext.P5 circular based on the principles established in the referenced Division Bench judgment.

Regarding Exts.P2 to P4, the court highlighted that statutory remedies were available to the petitioner. If the petitioner had grievances for other reasons, they were advised to challenge those orders through appropriate proceedings. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as it failed to establish grounds for relief.