2015 (4) TMI 901 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Valuation of liability - No VAT was collected from the customers - Held that - petitioner further submitted that if an opportunity is given to the petitioner, they would be able to convince the authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has also agreed to pay 20% of the amount as determined in the impugned order and if some time is granted, they would co-operate to enable the assessing officer to complete the proceedings afresh. - Respondent is directed to accept 20% of the amount as determined in the impugned order, which the petitioner has agreed to pay, which can be adjusted from the refund, if any, and give one more opportunity to the petitioner to putforth their objections and thereafter to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law - Petition disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to respondent's order dated 17.12.2014 regarding VAT assessment. Petitioner's request for fresh assessment based on actual sales declared in returns. Petitioner's willingness to pay 20% of determined amount. Request for another opportunity to present objections.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the respondent's order dated 17.12.2014 related to VAT assessment. The petitioner contended that during the assessment year, no VAT was collected from customers. In response to a notice issued on 31.12.2013, the petitioner submitted a reply on 4.2.2014 requesting a fresh assessment order considering actual sales declared in returns. The petitioner expressed willingness to pay 20% of the determined amount and requested an opportunity to convince the authority. The High Court directed the respondent to accept the 20% payment agreed upon by the petitioner, which could be adjusted from any refund due. The petitioner was granted another opportunity to present objections and the authority was instructed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

The petitioner agreed to appear before the authority on 16.03.2015 to provide verbal and written submissions. Failure to avail this opportunity would empower the authority to pass orders based on available records. If such an order was issued, the petitioner undertook not to challenge it before the appellate authority. The High Court disposed of the writ petition with the direction for the respondent to consider the 20% payment, allow the petitioner to present objections, and make a decision in accordance with the law. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.