2018 (12) TMI 1629 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of assessment order - case of petitioner is that the equal addition made by the Assessing Officer cannot be sustained, since the equal time addition for probable omission is not called for - Held that - This Court, at this stage is not willing to express any view, as admittedly, the petitioner ought to have agitated the matter before the next fact finding authority viz., the Appellate Authority, by filing a regular appeal. In this case, they have not chosen to file such reply. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain these writ petitions. However, the factual aspects of the matter have to be agitated and adjudicated before the next fact finding authority viz., the Appellate Authority. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant liberty to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal as against the impugned orders subject to a condition that the petitioner should pay 50% of the tax liability before the Assessing Officer. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging assessment orders for multiple years based on equal addition made by the Assessing Officer.

Analysis:
The writ petitions were filed to challenge the assessment orders for the years 2014-2015, 2015-2016, and 2016-2017. The main contention raised was that the equal addition made by the Assessing Officer was not justified, citing a previous decision of the Court. The petitioner argued against the imposition of equal addition and penalty, emphasizing that it was unwarranted. On the other hand, the Additional Government Pleader argued that the petitioner had not responded to the notices of proposal and had delayed filing the writ petitions, hence questioning the jurisdiction of the Court to interfere with the impugned orders.

The Court noted that while the petitioner had received the notices of proposal, they had failed to file any reply. The petitioner's explanation that their clerk did not inform them adequately was considered insufficient. The Court opined that the petitioner should have raised the issues before the Appellate Authority by filing a regular appeal, which they had neglected to do. Consequently, the Court declined to entertain the writ petitions but granted liberty to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal. The condition imposed was that the petitioner must pay 50% of the tax liability for each assessment year before the Assessing Officer within two weeks from the date of the order.

In conclusion, the Court disposed of all the writ petitions by allowing the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority, subject to the specified terms and conditions. Failure to comply with the payment requirement would result in the automatic restoration of the impugned orders. The judgment did not award costs, and all related miscellaneous petitions were closed.