2019 (1) TMI 1966 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Legality of remanding the case - Revision of assessment - mismatch of data - opportunity of hearing not availed - HELD THAT - The mismatch is not the only issue, but there are other issues. Apart from that, the assessee failed to avail the opportunity granted by the Assessing Officer vide notices dated 06.4.2018, 07.5.2018 and 21.5.2018 and also failed to respond to the summons dated 29.8.2018. Therefore, even though one among the issues may arise out of mismatch, we find that the details have been fully furnished namely names of the dealers, tax payer identification numbers, invoice numbers, dates and value of the products. If the assessee has a genuine case, they would have reconciled by producing necessary records before the Assessing Officer. Hence, the learned Single Judge was perfectly right in not entertaining the writ petition and relegating the assessee to file an appeal under the Statute. The learned Single Judge granted the assessee two weeks' time to file an appeal and this time is extended by two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment - The writ appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the learned Single Judge should have remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer based on the revision of assessment.
2. Whether the issue of mismatch was the sole reason for revising the turnover.
3. Whether the assessee failed to avail opportunities granted by the Assessing Officer and respond to notices and summons.
4. Whether the learned Single Judge was correct in not entertaining the writ petition and directing the assessee to file an appeal under the Statute.

The writ appeal challenged an order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.31545 of 2018. The appellant contended that the matter should have been remanded to the Assessing Officer, arguing that the revision of assessment was not solely based on a mismatch issue. The appellant cited a previous decision by one of the judges in a similar case. However, the court noted that while mismatch was a factor, other issues existed. The assessee had not responded to notices and summons from the Assessing Officer, despite being provided with opportunities. The court emphasized that the assessee had not reconciled the discrepancies by providing necessary records. Consequently, the learned Single Judge's decision to dismiss the writ petition and direct the assessee to file an appeal under the Statute was upheld.

The court found that the mismatch issue was not the only concern, as there were additional issues involved. Despite being given multiple opportunities to respond to notices and summons, the assessee failed to do so. The court highlighted that the assessee had not taken steps to reconcile the discrepancies by presenting relevant records to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the decision to dismiss the writ appeal and instruct the assessee to pursue remedies under the Statute was deemed appropriate.

In conclusion, the writ appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision of the learned Single Judge. The assessee was granted an extended period to file an appeal. No costs were awarded, and the connected CMP was also dismissed. The judgment emphasized the importance of complying with official procedures and providing necessary documentation to address assessment issues effectively.