9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 329 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxDelay condoned in filing appeal - delay in filing appeal due to the reason that writ petitions were filed in this Court which ultimately came to be decided on 18th February, 2016 - questions of law raised for consideration - On account of the fact that the Appellant has claimed refund in the return, no coercive measures for enforcement of demand arising from the impugned order shall be taken against the Appellant during the pendency of the appeal - application disposed off.
Issues involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Questions of law framed for consideration regarding the authority of an Audit Officer, issuance of assessment notices, and producing corrected documents during audit proceedings. 3. Stay on coercive measures for enforcement of demand during the pendency of the appeal. Analysis: 1. The judgment addresses the delay of 560 days in filing the appeal, explaining that writ petitions were filed previously, and the Court granted leave to prefer an appeal along with an application for condonation of delay. The delay is condoned, and the application is disposed of. 2. The judgment admits the appeal and frames three questions of law for consideration. Firstly, it questions the authority of an Audit Officer to complete an audit for a period different from the one initially noticed. Secondly, it queries the legality of the same officer issuing notices of assessment and penalty post-audit. Lastly, it examines the permissibility of producing corrected documents certified by a Chartered Accountant during audit proceedings if the previously submitted document had clerical errors but was substantially correct. The parties are allowed to file their compilation of documents, and the case is listed for further proceedings. 3. Regarding the stay application, the judgment rules that no coercive measures for enforcing the demand arising from the impugned order shall be taken against the Appellant during the appeal's pendency. The application is disposed of, ensuring protection against enforcement actions while the appeal is ongoing.
|
