2019 (6) TMI 1653 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of revisionary assessment order - failure of petitioner-company to file its objections to SCN within time - HELD THAT - Perusal of the impugned revisionary assessment order demonstrates that the petitioner-company was served with notices but it failed to file its objections within time. As it is stated that the earlier assessment which was subjected to revision resulted in a huge enhancement of the total Entertainment Tax payable by the petitioner-company one more opportunity should be afforded to the petitioner-company to put forth its stand before the revisionary authority. The Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the revisionary assessment order and remitting the matter to the revisionary authority viz. the Assistant Commissioner (State Tax) Basheerbagh Circle Abids Divison Hyderabad for consideration afresh of the matter after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-company through its authorized representative.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to revisionary assessment order under Entertainment Tax Act, 1939 for tax period 2010-11 to 2013-14 due to cessation of commercial operations in 2017.

Analysis:
The petitioner-company challenged the revisionary assessment order dated 21.01.2019 by the Assistant Commissioner (State Tax) regarding Entertainment Tax for the tax period 2010-11 to 2013-14. The revisionary authority quantified the total Entertainment Tax payable by the petitioner at ?3,24,51,090 and directed the Entertainment Tax Officer to implement it. The petitioner's counsel argued that due to the company's commercial operations ceasing in 2017, it couldn't present objections timely. The court noted that the petitioner failed to file objections within the specified time despite being served with notices. Acknowledging the significant increase in the total tax amount, the court decided to grant the petitioner another opportunity to present its case before the revisionary authority.

The court allowed the Writ Petition, setting aside the revisionary assessment order and remanding the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration. The petitioner-company's authorized representative, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dubey, was identified with his contact details provided. The court directed that notices should be served to the authorized representative for participation in the proceedings on behalf of the petitioner. The revisionary authority was instructed to complete the process within two months from the date of receipt of the court's order. Any pending miscellaneous petitions in this matter were to be closed following this final decision, with no specific order regarding costs.