2013 (12) TMI 160 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of Assessment order Petitioner contended that notice not served - Breach of principles of natural justice Held that - The petitions involve seriously disputed questions of fact as well as questions of law on merits of the controversy - it would be appropriate for the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of filing appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals) - in case the petitioner files appeals before the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals) , the appellate authority shall entertain the appeals and examine all contentions without raising the plea of limitation as far as the filing of appeals is concerned Decided in favour of Petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging assessment orders and demand notices under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2008-09. Dispute regarding service of notice, appearance before Assessing Officer, authorization of Chartered Accountant, breach of principles of natural justice, and alternative remedy of filing appeal before Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals).

Analysis:
The petitioner company filed writ petitions challenging assessment orders and demand notices issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (Investigation) 1-2, Mumbai under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2008-09. The petitioner contended that they were not served with notices for the years in question and their representative had not appeared before the Assessing Officer. The petitioner also raised objections on the merits of the assessment and cited a judgment of the Supreme Court in support.

The respondents opposed the petition, claiming that the petitioner's representative did appear before the Assessing Officer for the relevant years and had received the notices. They relied on an authorization issued by the petitioner to a Chartered Accountant for other assessment years as evidence of representation. The petitioner disputed the authenticity of these authorizations and argued that the Assessing Officer had passed the orders hastily to meet the limitation deadline.

The court considered the disputed facts and legal issues involved in the case. While acknowledging the seriousness of the breach of natural justice, the court directed the petitioner to pursue the alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals) within two weeks. The court instructed the appellate authority to entertain the appeals without raising the plea of limitation and to decide the appeals promptly and in accordance with the law.

In light of the circumstances, the court ordered that the demand notices would not be enforced until the appellate authority made a decision. Consequently, both writ petitions were disposed of, emphasizing the importance of availing the statutory remedy of appeal while ensuring that the petitioner's rights were protected during the appellate process.