2023 (5) TMI 1189 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Production of C-Forms - Seeking return of amount recovered consequent to such communication in excess of 30% of the demand along with interest - whether this Court must dispose of the petition with only orders on the petitioner s grievance as against the communications dated 27.10.2020 in order to enable effective and complete adjudication? HELD THAT - If the law does not prohibit multiple assessments under circumstances and such circumstances could include the subsequent production of statutory C-forms, the petitioner should not be exposed to the travails of multiple proceedings. This Court must also consider the fact that the department has realised the entire demand as way back as in the month of November 2020. If the petitioner is permitted to produce the Statutory C-Forms and the fourth respondent is 1 Sri Hema Kumar K, learned Additional Government Advocate also submits that the amount is realised only after the lapse of the appeal period as against the order dated 18.11.2020. directed to reconsider assessment the petitioner s grievance not just against the realisation of the demand but also framing of assessment, there would complete adjudication. As such, the petitions must be disposed of quashing the orders dated 18.09.2020 by the fourth respondent with liberty to both the parties and authorities to place a certified copy of this order before the fifth respondent for disposal of the appeals in Nos. 357087702 and 327087703 consequent to this order. The petitions are disposed of quashing the fourth respondent s orders dated 18.09.2020 and consequentially, the assessment proceedings are restored to the fourth respondent for reframing with due opportunity to the petitioner to file Statutory C-Forms.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the impugning of communications for recovery of demand, rectification of assessment orders, denial of opportunity, production of Statutory C-Forms, multiple assessments, realisation of amounts, and framing of assessment.

Impugned Communications and Rectification of Assessment Orders:
The petitioners challenged communications dated 27.10.2020 for recovery of demand and sought the return of excess amounts recovered. After assessment orders dated 18.09.2020, rectification applications were filed and the demand was revised by orders dated 06.11.2020. Despite this, the impugned communications resulted in the recovery of amounts. The petitioners filed appeals against these orders, but their applications for stay were rejected.

Denial of Opportunity and Production of Statutory C-Forms:
The petitioner's counsel argued that the actions of the fourth respondent in realizing the entire amount without granting an opportunity amounted to denial of opportunity. It was highlighted that the petitioner had not furnished Statutory Forms due to COVID-19 restrictions and could produce them if given a chance. The possibility of reassessment based on the production of Statutory C-Forms was emphasized.

Multiple Assessments and Realisation of Amounts:
The government advocate contended that the petitioner could not complain as rectification was sought only after the realisation of amounts. However, it was acknowledged that multiple assessments could be permissible, and if the petitioner could now produce the Statutory C-Forms, reassessment could be considered. The realisation of the entire demand was noted to have occurred in November 20201.

Judicial Consideration and Disposition:
The court deliberated on whether to dispose of the petition solely on the petitioner's grievance against the communications dated 27.10.2020. The possibility of multiple assessments and the subsequent production of Statutory C-Forms were considered. Ultimately, the court quashed the orders dated 18.09.2020, allowing the assessment proceedings to be reframed with an opportunity for the petitioner to file Statutory C-Forms. The petitioner was directed to appear before the fourth respondent to produce the forms within a specified timeframe for the reframing of assessment.