9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 865 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxService of SCN - grievance of petitioner is that the show cause notice was sent to the previous address and that therefore, they were unable to file a reply - HELD THAT - It was found that Form VAT 112 was not filed by the petitioner. Therefore, the Assessing Officer did not commit a mistake in sending the show cause notice to the address as reflected in their records - But, at the same time, the turnover which the petitioner claimed to be exempted under the Telangana Value Added Tax Act, 2005, has been treated as stock transfer and a levy made under the CST Act, 1956. If the petitioner had promptly informed the change of address and participated in the proceedings, this could not have been happened. One opportunity should be given to the petitioner. But, since the respondents were not at fault, we directed the petitioner to make payment of a sum of ₹ 3,00,000/- - The amount of ₹ 3,00,000/- deposited pursuant to the order passed by this Court, will be dealt with depending upon the out come of the assessment. If no tax liability is fastened ultimately, by any order passed by the Assessing Officer, the amount deposited shall be refunded. Petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to order of assessment under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 2. Show cause notice sent to previous address. 3. Treatment of claimed exempt turnover as stock transfer. 4. Direction for petitioner to make payment. 5. Setting aside of impugned order and directions for filing reply and fresh assessment. Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged an order of assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner contended that the show cause notice was sent to the previous address, preventing them from filing a reply. However, it was noted that Form VAT 112 was not filed by the petitioner, justifying the Assessing Officer's action in sending the notice to the address on record. 2. Despite the above, the turnover claimed as exempt under the Telangana Value Added Tax Act, 2005, was treated as a stock transfer, resulting in a levy under the CST Act, 1956. The court acknowledged that had the petitioner promptly updated their address and participated in the proceedings, this situation could have been avoided. Consequently, the court decided to grant the petitioner one opportunity. Although the respondents were not at fault, the petitioner was directed to make a payment of ?3,00,000, which was duly complied with. 3. As a result of the above considerations, the writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the petitioner was instructed to file their reply to the show cause notice and the points in the impugned order by a specified deadline. The Assessing Officer was directed to schedule a personal hearing before a certain date and, after hearing the petitioner, to pass fresh orders. The amount deposited by the petitioner would be handled based on the outcome of the assessment, with a provision for refund if no tax liability was ultimately imposed. 4. The judgment also addressed any pending miscellaneous petitions, stating that they would be dismissed with no specific order as to costs.
|
