9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (8) TMI 501 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxChallenge to orders of provisional assessment orders under Section 25(1) of U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 - prayer for quashing of the aforesaid two circulars dated 12th November 2013 and 29th of January 2014 passed by the Commissioner, Commercial Tax. U.P. Lucknow - Held that - It is admitted by the petitioner that the notices were served, however, the petitioner was prevented to appear in their case as one day time is not an adequate opportunity. However, the petitioner instead of taking recourse of remedy of Section 32 of the Act, has rushed to this Court. - Accordingly, in view of availability of an alternative remedy in the form of Section 32 of U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008, we are not inclined to entertain this petition. The liberty is given to the petitioner to invoke his right under Section 32 of the Act. If any such application is made by the petitioner within 30 days from today, the same shall be entertained and decided expeditiously after providing a reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing and of taking all the grounds, pleas and defence which may be available to the petitioner in law. The application, if so moved under Section 32 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008, will not be rejected merely on the ground of delay, if any. - Writ petition disposed of.
Issues:
Challenge to Circulars dated 12th November 2013 and 29th January 2014 issued by Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow; Provisional assessment orders under Section 25(1) of U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 for the months of April 2013 to September 2013. Analysis: The writ petition challenged Circulars dated 12th November 2013 and 29th January 2014 issued by the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow, instructing subordinate authorities to comply with the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, the petitioner did not press for quashing these circulars but requested to keep the challenge open for future proceedings. The petitioner also contested provisional assessment orders under Section 25(1) of U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 for April 2013 to September 2013. The petitioner's counsel argued that the notices for these assessments were served on 30th January 2014, and the petitioner sought 15 days to file objections, but the application was not entertained. The impugned assessment orders were passed on 31st January 2014 without proper opportunity given to the petitioner, leading to concerns of being ex parte. The Court referred to the case of Modi Xerox Limited vs. Additional Commissioner of Trade Tax, emphasizing that adequate and proper opportunity must be provided even for provisional assessments. The Court noted that one day's notice for filing objections was insufficient, considering the circumstances. The Court highlighted Section 32 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008, which allows dealers to apply within 30 days to set aside ex parte orders if they were not able to appear due to sufficient cause. Despite the petitioner's admission of receiving notices, the Court observed that one day was inadequate for a reasonable opportunity. The Court directed the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy under Section 32 instead of approaching the High Court directly. The Court declined to entertain the petition due to the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 32 of the Act, granting the petitioner liberty to invoke this right within 30 days. The Court assured that any application under Section 32 would be considered promptly, providing a fair opportunity for the petitioner to present all grounds and defenses without rejection based solely on delay. The writ petition was finally disposed of with these directions, emphasizing the importance of following statutory remedies for such matters.
|
