9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (8) TMI 221 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxValidity of Assessment Order - concessional rate of tax - export sales in the course of import (High-Sea Sales) - allegation that the transactions were not supported by any documentary evidence - Section 5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - HELD THAT - It was the duty of the 1st respondent to refer to the documents submitted by the petitioner along with its replies dt.06.07.2019 and 09.07.2019 (Exs.P.2 and P.3) and the failure of the 1st respondent to do so before passing of the impugned order vitiates the said impugned order. The impugned Assessment Order passed by the 1st respondent under the Central Sales Tax with reference to the period April, 2015 to March, 2016 is set aside - the matter is remitted to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration - petition allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
Assailing assessment order under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Analysis: The petitioner challenged Assessment Order No.18295 dated 29.02.2020 issued by the 1st respondent, a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling steel products. The dispute arose regarding export sales made in the course of import (High-Sea Sales) and inter-State sales for the period April 2015 to March 2016. The 1st respondent proposed taxing the turnover @ 14.5%, alleging lack of documentary evidence for the transactions. The petitioner submitted details of transactions but failed to provide complete information for one transaction due to missing documents from clients. Despite participating in a personal hearing and submitting all relevant information, the petitioner received the impugned assessment order which did not reference the material submitted. The petitioner sought to set aside the order and remand the matter for fresh consideration, emphasizing the importance of considering the documents provided. The Court noted that the 1st respondent failed to refer to the documents submitted by the petitioner, which were crucial for the assessment. The Court found the omission of considering the material submitted by the petitioner before passing the impugned order as a fatal flaw, vitiating the order. Consequently, the Court allowed the Writ Petition, setting aside the Assessment Order No.18295 dated 29.02.2020 and remitting the matter back to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration. The 1st respondent was directed to review the documentary evidence filed by the petitioner on 06.07.2019 and 09.07.2019, provide a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order in accordance with the law. The Court emphasized the importance of due consideration of all relevant materials and proper communication of the decision to the petitioner. No costs were awarded, and pending miscellaneous petitions in the matter were closed as a result of the judgment.
|
