9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 476 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRevision of assessment judicial power of respondent web report failure on the part of petitioner to give reply to notices and annexures Held that - . Despite many opportunities granted to the petitioner, he has not come forward to thwart the case of the respondent. Impugned order holds good. The reasoned order cannot be thrashed out under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alternative remedy available is appeal or revision - writ petition dismissed.
Issues: Jurisdiction of respondent to revise assessment based on Web-report obtained without petitioner's knowledge.
Analysis: The petitioner challenged the respondent's order dated 01.06.2016, alleging lack of jurisdiction due to reliance on a Web-report obtained without their knowledge. The petitioner argued that as a quasi-judicial authority, the respondent should not have based the assessment on documents from the Web-report without providing valid reasons or establishing the alleged purchases. However, the Court noted that the petitioner had been given multiple opportunities to respond to the allegations but failed to do so, leading to the impugned order. The Court found no merit in the petitioner's contentions, emphasizing that the respondent had followed due process by issuing notices and providing opportunities for the petitioner to present their case. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition, stating that the impugned order was valid and could not be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court highlighted that the petitioner's failure to respond despite repeated reminders and opportunities granted by the Department undermined their case. The Court emphasized that the petitioner had not taken necessary steps to counter the respondent's claims, leading to the dismissal of the Writ Petition. The Court also pointed out that the petitioner had the option to file an appeal or revision within a specified period from the date of the order, indicating that alternative legal remedies were available to the petitioner. Overall, the Court upheld the respondent's order, emphasizing the importance of complying with procedural requirements and engaging in the legal process to address grievances effectively.
|
