9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 943 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRevision of assessment - denial of Input Tax Credit - case of petitioner is that that the prerevision notices are bereft of requisite particulars, in the absence of which, proper objection could not be submitted - Principles of Natural Justice. Held that - On a perusal of the show cause notices, it is seen that they were bereft of particulars regarding the name and/or trade identification number (TIN) number of the dealer at the other hand. It is stated that cross verification of buyer and seller as per Annexure I is made through Web. But, web report was not enclosed. Unless the intranet web report along with all details are furnished, the purchaser would not be in a position to reconcile the mismatch. It is very unfortunate that neither the Circular issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes nor the procedures, as discussed in the case of M/S. JKM GRAPHICS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER 2017 (3) TMI 536 - MADRAS HIGH COURT were scrupulously followed by the Assessing Officer in the present case on hand. The impugned orders passed by the second respondent in TIN33753681120/2011-12 to 2015-16, respectively, dated 14.03.2018 are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the file of the second respondent for fresh consideration - Petition allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
Challenging revised assessment orders due to lack of requisite particulars in pre-revision notices and failure to provide necessary documentation for verification. Analysis: The petitioner, a dealer in Home appliances, challenged revised assessment orders for the years 2011-12 to 2015-16 issued by the second respondent. The petitioner contended that the pre-revision notices lacked necessary particulars, hindering their ability to respond adequately. The petitioner's accountant also sought relevant information from the second respondent, which was not provided. The impugned orders reversed input tax credit (ITC) based on discrepancies, prompting the filing of writ petitions. The petitioner relied on a previous decision by the court to argue that the pre-revision notices were deficient in essential details, preventing proper objections. Additionally, the petitioner argued that if there were discrepancies, action should be taken against the defaulting seller, not the purchaser, citing a previous court decision to support this position. The Additional Government Pleader defended the actions of the second respondent, stating that the petitioner was given opportunities to respond to the notices but failed to do so. It was argued that factual disputes should be addressed before the appropriate authority through an appeal rather than through writ petitions. Upon examining the show cause notices, the court found them lacking in crucial details necessary for reconciliation of discrepancies. The court referred to a circular directing Assessing Officers to provide detailed mismatch transaction data in cases of discrepancies. The court highlighted that proper procedures were not followed by the Assessing Officer in the present case. The court concluded that the impugned orders should be quashed, and the matter remitted back to the second respondent for fresh consideration. The second respondent was instructed to conduct a thorough inquiry, issue a show cause notice with all necessary particulars, provide an opportunity for a personal hearing, and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks. The court emphasized that any delays caused by the petitioner could be recorded and addressed accordingly. In the final decision, all the writ petitions were allowed, with no costs imposed, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
|
