9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 1170 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxPrinciples of Natural Justice - service of SCN - petitioner contends that the alleged show-cause notice dt.10.07.2019 was served on the petitioner by e -mail only on 16.11.2019 along with personal hearing notice - HELD THAT - The 1st respondent was bound to taken into account the response filed by petitioner on 20.11.2019 to the show-cause notice dt.10.07.2019 issued by the 1st respondent before passing the impugned assessment order. He also ought to have considered the CST returns filed by the petitioner. Failure to do so, has vitiated the impugned order. The matter is remitted to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration; the 1st respondent is directed to provide a personal hearing to the petitioner - Petition allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
Assessment Order Challenge under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 Analysis: The petitioner challenged Assessment Order No.51615 dated 31.03.2020 issued by the 1st respondent for the tax period 2015-16 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner alleged not receiving a show-cause notice dated 10.07.2019 before a subsequent notice on 16.11.2019, which led to the petitioner disputing the turnover and tax proposed in the impugned notice. The petitioner's response on 20.11.2019 was not considered before passing the Assessment Order. The petitioner also argued that the assessment for the period April 2015 to February 2016 was time-barred and that the 1st respondent did not refer to the CST returns filed by the petitioner in the impugned Assessment Order. The Court noted that the 1st respondent failed to consider the petitioner's response to the show-cause notice and the CST returns before passing the impugned Assessment Order. The Court found the impugned order to be vitiated due to this failure. Consequently, the Court allowed the Writ Petition, setting aside the Assessment Order and remitting the matter back to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration. The 1st respondent was directed to provide a personal hearing to the petitioner, allow the filing of additional responses with supporting material, and consider the plea of limitation for the assessment period April 2015 to February 2016. The 1st respondent was instructed to pass a reasoned order in accordance with the law and communicate it to the petitioner. In conclusion, the Writ Petition was allowed, and no costs were imposed. Any pending miscellaneous petitions in this matter were to be closed accordingly.
|
