2021 (3) TMI 1311 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Demand of tax - validity of calling upon the petitioner to make available the interim order of stay obtained by the petitioner in respect of those demands - HELD THAT - The petitioner has been advised to pay amounts in question, if he has not obtained any interim order of stay. Against such a communication, no writ petition can lie. The petitioner claims that in respect of the assessment year 2013-14, he had successfully challenged the same in a writ petition. If that be so, the petitioner can very well produce a copy of the same for consideration of the respondent. If the demand in respect of said assessment year has been set aside by this Court, certainly the respondent cannot enforce with the same. The respondent is directed to serve copies of the assessment orders in the respect of the assessment years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 - the respondent shall furnish the certified copies of the assessment orders in respect of the assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to notice demanding tax for assessment years 2013-2014 to 2016-2017.
2. Requirement to produce interim order of stay.
3. Lack of interim stay for assessment year 2013-2014.
4. Non-receipt of assessment orders for 2015-2016 and 2016-2017.
5. Direction to respondent to provide assessment orders.
6. Issue of limitation left open.

Analysis:
The judgment addressed a writ petition where the petitioner, an assessee registered with the respondent, challenged a notice demanding tax for the assessment years 2013-2014 to 2016-2017. The petitioner was called upon to produce the interim order of stay obtained for the demands. The petitioner claimed to have successfully challenged the assessment for 2013-2014 in a previous writ petition but had not obtained an interim stay. The respondent was directed to provide copies of assessment orders for the years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017, acknowledging that the issue of limitation was not decided as the petitioner may or may not have received the orders. The judgment emphasized the importance of clarity on assessment orders and the need for the respondent to provide certified copies within two weeks, with a request not to rush the matter for four weeks. No costs were awarded, and the petition was disposed of, leaving the issue of limitation open for future consideration.