2018 (5) TMI 373 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of revision notice - inter-state sales - petitioner s apprehension is that in spite of giving a detailed reply to the enforcement officials explaining that the stand taken by them is wholly incorrect, the first respondent has mechanically issued the impugned notices - Held that - the matter is yet to be concluded and assessment proceedings are yet to commence - Though it may be true that revision of assessments have occurred earlier, as and when Form C declarations are filed, the first respondent is bound to take note of the same and if the forms are found to be in order, he should revise the assessment. Though the revision notices are consequent upon a VAT Audit conducted in the business premises of the petitioner, that by itself will not be a reason for not submitting objection to the notice. Writ petitions are disposed of by directing the petitioner to submit comprehensive reply to all the revision notices received by them within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Direction sought for independent exercise of adjudicatory powers by the first respondent.
2. Validity of revision notices issued by the first respondent.
3. Determination of sales as interstate or local.
4. Compliance with legal principles and precedents in assessment proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a registered company under the Companies Act, sought direction for the first respondent to act independently in exercising adjudicatory powers based on legal precedents. The petitioner's concern arose from revision notices issued by the first respondent following an inspection and VAT Audit, without specifying the legal basis for reassessment.

2. The impugned notices raised issues regarding the nature of sales, specifically questioning the interstate sales based on transporter details in invoices. Despite the petitioner's detailed explanations, the notices were issued mechanically, lacking legal grounds for reassessment as highlighted in a previous court decision.

3. To establish sales as interstate, the petitioner relied on court decisions emphasizing the location of concluded sales and compliance with documentation requirements. The petitioner argued that the transaction conditions align with legal standards, including the use of Form C by recipients to support most supplies.

4. The judgment emphasized the independence of the assessing officer in considering objections, perusing documents, and reaching an unbiased conclusion. The court directed the petitioner to respond comprehensively to the revision notices within 15 days, ensuring a fair assessment process by the first respondent without influence from enforcement officers. The assessing officer was instructed to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law, considering relevant legal decisions presented by the petitioner.