9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 1911 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxDefault assessment of tax and interest - CST Act - case of petitioner is that the said order was passed without hearing - invocation of Section 74B(5) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 - HELD THAT - The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Objections Hearing Authority must be an independent person, who was not member of administrative approval committee, i.e., refund committee in the present case. Learned counsel for the respondent states that the Special Commissioner would be the Objections Hearing Authority in the present case. He states that the Special Commissioner, who has not dealt with the case of the petitioner on administrative side, could be appointed as a special case. The Special Commissioner, who is not a part of the Refund Committee, would be, as a special case, appointed to hear and decide the objections raised by the petitioner - The Objections Hearing Authority will pass a speaking order within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of objections - petitioner would file objections within three weeks. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
Challenge to default assessment order under CST Act without hearing; Invocation of Section 74B(5) of Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004; Appointment of Objections Hearing Authority; Independence of Objections Hearing Authority; Directions for filing objections and passing a speaking order; Right to challenge the order; Stay against coercive action for recovery. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the default assessment order under the CST Act, alleging it was passed without a hearing and invoked Section 74B(5) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004. The order directed the petitioner to deposit a specific sum and furnish proof of payment by a certain date. The respondent contended that the order was under Section 32 of the Act, allowing the petitioner to file objections under Section 74, to be heard by the Objections Hearing Authority, which would issue a speaking order addressing the petitioner's contentions, including those related to Section 74B. The parties discussed the appointment of the Objections Hearing Authority, with the petitioner insisting on an independent person not part of the refund committee. The respondent proposed the Special Commissioner as the Authority, emphasizing that appointing someone who had not dealt with the petitioner's case administratively could be a special consideration. The court disposed of the petition based on the agreed terms: the petitioner to file objections within three weeks, the Special Commissioner (not part of the Refund Committee) to hear and decide the objections, issuance of a speaking order within six weeks of objection filing, the petitioner's right to challenge the Authority's decision, and entitlement to seek a stay against coercive recovery actions. Additionally, the petitioner was granted access to the original file outside the court and allowed to request document supply within three working days. The judgment highlighted the importance of following the legal procedures, ensuring fair hearings, and providing avenues for redress if aggrieved by official decisions or actions.
|
