2018 (8) TMI 1821 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Levy of additional tax - validity of assessment order for the year 2013-2014 - HELD THAT - The petitioner filed the appeal on time and invited the Ext.P2, passed on 16.02.2018. In the Ext.P2, there is a specific direction the petitioner should appear before the assessing authority within one month and place evidence to establish its defence. But the petitioner neglected. True, the petitioner s plea of communication gap is evasive. Further, the assessing authority, too, issued a notice on 11.05.2018, requiring the petitioner to appear and place evidence. Only thus did the authority pass the Ext.P3 order on 16.05.2018. It is the petitioner's plea that if one more opportunity is given, the petitioner could demonstrate before the assessing authority how the impugned assessment proceedings could not be sustained. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Assessment order challenged for additional tax imposition, appeal outcome, failure to produce evidence before assessing authority, seeking direction for rehearing.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an assessment order for the year 2013-2014, where additional tax and interest were imposed. The appeal resulted in a partial success with a direction to produce evidence before the assessing authority. However, the petitioner failed to do so despite multiple opportunities. Subsequently, a new order was issued reaffirming the penalty and interest. The petitioner then filed a Writ Petition seeking a rehearing based on the earlier direction.

The petitioner's counsel argued a "communication gap" prevented timely evidence submission, emphasizing the crucial role of the records. The Government Pleader contended that the petitioner lacked bona fides and was negligent. The Court noted the petitioner's failure to comply with the earlier direction to produce evidence within a specified timeframe.

While acknowledging the petitioner's lapses, the Court considered the interest of justice. It set aside the latest order and reiterated the direction to produce all relevant records before the assessing authority by a specified date. The Court emphasized the importance of timely compliance with the direction to ensure the assessing authority could proceed effectively.

In conclusion, the Court disposed of the Writ Petition by ordering the petitioner to produce the necessary evidence within the agreed timeframe, emphasizing the need for compliance to facilitate further proceedings by the assessing authority.