|
Advanced Search Options
VAT / Sales Tax - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 27514 Records
-
2024 (9) TMI 1353
Constitutional validity of Section 33 (5) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - waiver of condition of pre-deposit of surety bond or bank guarantee - inability to furnish security in the form of surety bond or bank guarantee - HELD THAT:- While power does not lie with the appellate authority to waive the condition of pre-deposit of surety bond or bank guarantee in terms of Section 33 (5) of the HVAT Act, however, this Court is not precluded under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the appeal to be heard without insisting upon the precondition.
It is true that the Supreme Court in M/s Tecnimont Private Limited [2019 (9) TMI 788 - SUPREME COURT] considered a separate set of provisions, however, we do not agree with the learned State counsel that merely because under Section 33 (5) of the HVAT Act the requirement is not of actual deposit but submitting a bank guarantee or adequate security to the satisfaction of the assessing officer. The provision has to be read differently. While such a provision may exist on the statute, the circular issued asking for irrevocable bank guarantee or security in the form of surety bond is too onerous a condition.
This Court is satisfied that the petitioners before us would not be in a position to submit security in the nature of surety bond as in all the cases the company or the concerned Directors would be required to have property worth the said amount which they do not possess. A person cannot be left remediless, and in view thereto, as opined in M/s Tecnimont Private Limited and Smt. P. Laxmi Devi [2019 (9) TMI 788 - SUPREME COURT] the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Faridabad, is directed to hear the appeals without insisting upon the pre-condition required under Section 33 (5) of the HVAT Act and decide the appeals on merits.
Since the concerned appellate authority would not have the power to waive off the pre-deposit as required under Section 33 (5) of the HVAT Act, the order passed by the Haryana Tax Tribunal, Chandigarh, upholding the order of the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Faridabad, in refusing to entertain the appeal without submitting surety bonds or pre-deposit cannot be said to be illegal - appeal disposed off.
-
2024 (9) TMI 1317
Challenge to recovery notice - recovery of the dues of a Company from its Directors - alternative remedy under Section 287-A of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - HELD THAT:- On a plain reading of sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, the liability of the Directors of a private company will arise when a private company is wound up after the commencement of the Act. Therefore, Section 12 (1) will have no application as an order of winding up has not been produced.
Therefore, when there was no provision under the Act under which dues of a limited company could have been recovered from its Directors, the third respondent was not justified in issuing the recovery certificate and demand notice against the appellant. These crucial factors have been ignored by the High Court. It ought to have been noted by the High Court that an attempt to recover tax payable by the Company from the appellant from its inception was illegal and, therefore, the appellant ought not to have been driven to the remedy of preferring an appeal.
The impugned judgments and orders of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench are set aside. The notice of recovery dated 6th June, 2019 issued by the third respondent is hereby quash and set aside - Appeal allowed.
-
2024 (9) TMI 1316
Seeking waiver of tax - non-production of C-Forms - Whether the petitioners can file their documents for obtaining waiver of tax, at a later date? - whether such waiver of tax can be given without any further assessment/re-assessment/appellate order being passed by the concerned taxing authorities?
HELD THAT:- The conditions for grant of waiver are contained in the memo dated 27.09.2016 which has been extracted above. A perusal of the terms and conditions, in this memo, make it clear that the waiver of tax given under the memos, is applicable to those dealers who remit their tax completely as per the provisions of the CST, Act for the period from 01.06.2014 to 31.12.2015 before 30.09.2018; complete their assessment for the period from 01.06.2014 to 31.12.2015 before 30.09.2018; produce documents of movement of goods in the form of lorry receipts/railway receipts and CST waybills; production of proof of exit of the goods from the State Andhra Pradesh by producing proof of exit from the last notified check post in the State or by production of ledger accounts or book entries relating to payment of charges for transporting goods to other States.
A cutoff date is prescribed only in relation to payment of tax under the CST, Act and for completion of the assessment for the period from 01.06.2014 to 31.12.2015. There is no cutoff date prescribed for production of the other documents mentioned above. In the circumstances, the contention of the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, that the documents required for grant of waiver should be produced before the cutoff date cannot be accepted.
As far as the non-production of documents is concerned, the said non-production would be a question of fact, which would have to be gone into by the assessing authorities after considering whether the documents produced by the petitioners meet the terms and conditions set out in the memos.
It would be inequitable, to grant relief to those dealers who approached in the year 2019 while denying such relief to the dealers who approached later. In any event, the applications are only for the purposes of ascertaining the eligibility of the dealers/petitioners for grant of waiver.
The Endorsements issued by the respective tax authorities are set aside - The respective tax authorities, shall consider the applications of the petitioners afresh and grant waiver to those petitioners who are able to comply with the requirements of the documents set out in the memos - Petition disposed of.
-
2024 (9) TMI 1164
Seeking restoration of VAT and CST registration certificates after cancellation due to non-filing of returns - failure to file returns due to lack of proper office facilities and staff - HELD THAT:- The cancellation order which is never served upon petitioner cannot be said to have come into existence. However, as per the record of the respondents authorities, the said cancellation orders are still alive and as such the order dated 30th December 2019 passed by the appellate authority considering the compliance made by the petitioner is not being implemented by the respondents authorities.
Both the orders dated 6th July 2017 cancelling the VAT and CST registration certificates of the petitioner are hereby quashed and set aside so as to enable the respondents authorities to give effect to the appellate order dated 30th December 2019 passed by the Deputy State Tax Commissioner, Circle – 7, Gandhinagar.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (9) TMI 1068
Refund claim - misplacement of files by officials leading to delay in payment and reconstruction of files - entitlement to statutory interest on the refund amount - HELD THAT:- From the materials on record, it is apparent that the petitioner herein is entitled to the total amount of Rs. 37,87,166/- on account of refunds for the assessment years 1993-94, 1995-96, and 1998-99. The affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 does not deny the said figure. It has also been mentioned in the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 2 that the matter has been placed before the Government for approval after being processed from the Office of the Commissioner of Taxes.
This Court disposes of the instant writ petition with a direction to the respondents and more particularly the respondent No. 2 to ensure that the payment is made to the petitioner in respect to the amount of Rs. 37,87,166/- within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of a certified copy of the instant order is served upon respondent No.2 - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (9) TMI 1018
Validity of assessment order - exigibility to tax under the Delhi Tax on Luxuries Act, 1996 - Club and Association service - doctrine of mutuality - it was held by High Court that 'The decision of the Commissioner assailed shall not be liable to be treated as a precedent for any assessment period post the promulgation of the 2012 Amendment Act. Any assessments made or proceedings pending would have to be considered bearing in mind the observations rendered' - HELD THAT:- List for final disposal at 2 p.m. after four weeks.
-
2024 (9) TMI 831
Challenge to order of attachment - Priority of charge of Multi-State Co-operative Bank over Sales Tax Department for recovery of dues - Section 26 (E) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - HELD THAT:- There is no material placed on record by the Sales Tax Department that the attachment of the secured asset was made in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 and the Rules framed thereunder.
As held by the Full Bench in Jalgaon Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd and another [2022 (9) TMI 163 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], an attachment made under the Code should be followed by a proclamation as required by the Rules framed thereunder. If the said procedure has not been followed, then the Sales Tax Department would not be in a position to claim priority notwithstanding the fact that the order of attachment was passed prior to 24/01/2020. The affidavit filed on behalf of the Sales Tax Department is silent in that regard.
Petition allowed.
-
2024 (9) TMI 766
Levy of Entry tax - product being a tractor trailer - Interpretation of the definitions of "motor vehicle" and "vehicle" under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Orissa Entry Tax Act, 1999 - HELD THAT:- The definition given of ‘motor vehicle’ and ‘vehicle’ in section 2 (28) (Act of 1988). Section 2(h) in the Entry Tax Act defines only motor vehicle to mean the same as defined in clause (28) of section 2 (Act of 1988) excluding, inter alia, tractor.
There is no dispute that product manufactured by petitioner does not have a motor. As such, it can only find meaning as given for ‘vehicle’, by section 2 (28) in Motor Vehicles Act. 1988. Section 2(h) in Entry Tax Act, 1999 defines ‘motor vehicle’. There is no definition of ‘vehicle’ in that Act.
The question is answered in the negative and in favour of petitioner - Petition allowed.
-
2024 (9) TMI 765
Validity of the proceedings under Section 17-A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Time limitation of the order declaring the sale void after seven years - HELD THAT:- The provisions of Section 17-A, provide the commercial tax department with a provision to safeguard recovery of revenue by permitting an authority under the Act to declare any transaction which takes away an asset out of the reach of the department. Needless to say, this provision would be available only where it is shown that such property had been alienated for adequate consideration and the purchaser was unaware of the liability of the vendor in alienating such property.
This provision came to be considered by a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in the case of DAMERA RAMAKRISHNA AND OTHERS VERSUS COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (FAC), VIJAYAWADA AND OTHERS [2004 (10) TMI 556 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT]. In this case, a Private Limited Company had fallen in sales tax arrears to the tune of Rs. 35,98,030/-. The said assessee, while steps were being taken to recover the tax dues, had sold away immovable property belonging it and orders under Section 17-A were passed - In the present case, the facts are different. The petitioner is no other than the son-in-law of the 5th respondent and the assertion of the petitioner that he was unaware of the tax dues of the 6th respondent, which was essentially a family concern of the 5th respondent, cannot be taken on face value.
In the present case, though the company is admitted to be in liquidation, no steps have been taken against the 5th respondent by issuance of a notice calling upon him to pay the tax dues of the 6th respondent Private Limited Company nor was the 5th respondent given an opportunity of hearing to demonstrate that there was no liability to pay such taxes. In the absence of such an opportunity being given to the 5th respondent, tax liability cannot be fastened upon the 5th respondent.
This Court is of the view that the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 14.09.2007 would have to be set aside, subject to the condition that such proceedings can again be issued, provided steps are taken to fix liability of payment of tax dues of the 6th respondent on the 5th respondent and thereafter steps are taken for recovery of such tax dues.
This Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the order passed by the 1st respondent in RcB2 191/2007, dated 14.09.2007 under Section 17-A of APGST Act, 1957. However, it shall be open to the 1st respondent or any other competent authority under the APGST Act or the successor Acts, provided such authority is vested in any authority, under the Successor Act, to take steps to ascertain whether the 5th respondent would be liable to clear the dues of the 6th respondent and whether such tax dues can be recovered from the 5th respondent, if it is found that he would be liable to pay the tax dues of the 6th respondent.
Petition allowed.
-
2024 (9) TMI 764
Cancellation of assessment order - whether the Notification dated 13.09.2012 can be made applicable in the case of the present revisionist, whose goods were seized way back in the year 2008-2009? - HELD THAT:- As per the Notification dated 13.09.2012, the transporter during movement has to carry with him duly signed two copies of “Lorry Challan/E-generated Lorry Challan”, document of title to goods/GR/bilty, invoice/challan etc.
The present revisionist has been registered with the Ministry of Railways, and as per the letter dated 25.05.2006, he is bound to keep the complete address of the consignors as well as the consignee. When he was issued a show-cause notice before the assessment order dated 01.09.2009, and on that date, the Notification dated 13.09.2012, was not existing. Hence, the case of the revisionist has to be examined in view of the provisions of the Act applicable on the date when the assessment order was passed on 01.09.2009. In the present case, the provisions of section 49 (3) were done away by deleting the same by Notifications dated 13.09.2012 and 17.12.2012 with effect from 01.03.2012.
The law which was applicable with respect to the definition of the word dealer and whether the non production of the documents relating to the title of the goods i.e. duly signed two copies of “Lorry Challan/E-generated Lorry Challan”, document of title to goods/GR/bilty, invoice/challan etc., could be made basis to assess tax liability has already been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments.
In the present case, after the Notification of 13.09.2012, and 17.12.2012, the State of Uttarakhand had established check-posts at Kashipur, Rudrapur, Haldwani, Dehradun, Haridwar and Rishikesh, and if they are non functional, then mobile squad has also been deployed. In the case of the revisionist when the goods were transported, there was no checking done on the way as the goods were being transported on the railways coach, and hence, there was no checking done during the transportation of these goods, and hence, when there no checking was done during the transportation of the goods, the revisionist being a transporter of the goods cannot be liable to pay tax, if he has not produced the evidence of the name of the consignors and consignees.
The order dated 02.04.2014, passed by the Commissioner Tax Tribunal, Dehradun Bench, Dehradun is set aside, and the order passed by the JCA dated 19.06.2012, is being upheld - the present revision is being allowed.
-
2024 (9) TMI 763
Levy of penalty on the revisionist - ex parte penalty order was passed against the assessee - existence of mens rea or not - HELD THAT:- Before imposing penalty under Section 48 (8) of the Act, the Tax Assessment Officer has to be satisfied that the goods were imported in contravention of Section 48, is an attempt to evade assessment or payment of tax due or likely to be due under the Act. In this backdrop, the Tribunal, thereafter, proceeded to examine the alleged Declaration Form (Form DVI) of the import to the officer of the Trade Tax Department. The Import Declaration Form (Form XVI) was not in force, and its legal position will be like a waste paper, and in this backdrop, the Tribunal held that the trader had made the open contravention of the provisions of Section 48 (2). The Tribunal held that under Section 48A, the Import Declaration Form has to be given by the importer duly filled in and signed before the import of goods to the consignor.
There is no provision in the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 to produce new prevailing import declaration form before the Inquiry Officer, and hence, subsequent new declaration form produced by the assessee, along with his reply to the show-cause notice, cannot be a ground not to impose penalty on the assessee.
After perusing the order of the Tribunal, it is worth highlighting that imposition of penalty is on the ground that the trader was importing the goods with an import declaration form, which was invalid Form-XVI, and trip-sheet under Section 48A had not been prepared.
The very fact that when the goods are seized as per the provisions of Section 43 of the VAT Act, the provisions of Section 48 would require to be examined, which deals with the power to seize goods. Even in Section 43 (5), where an order of penalty has to be passed, an opportunity of hearing has to be given, and the officer has to be satisfied that there was an attempt to willfully not show the goods in accounts, register and other documents, and only then the penalty has to be imposed not exceeding 40% of the value of goods. After seizure of the goods under Section 43 (4), the Assessing Authority has to give a show-cause notice as to why show-cause notice should not be imposed, and after giving notice, an opportunity of hearing as per Section 43 (5) has to be given, and after examining the evidence, a finding has to be given whether there was willful attempt to evade tax.
On issuance of show-cause notice, the trader had produced the valid declaration form (Form XVI). It is the case of the trader that he had sent the material to Mysore for job work. The job work was not done and the material was being brought back to the Uttarakhand without the job work. Hence, there was no payment made for the job work, and it was not the case of import of goods to the State of Uttarakhand. The goods, which were sent from Uttarakhand, were being brought back to Uttarakhand without job work. Hence, the nature of goods had not been changed, and it was the case of invalid declaration form, which was made basis to impose penalty.
Castrol India Ltd. & another vs. Commissioner, Commercial Tax [2012 (4) TMI 585 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], was a case where under the U.P. VAT Act, 2008, the goods had been seized on the sole ground that the goods were not being accompanied by the Import Declaration Form (Form 38) under Section 50 of the Act. However, the original form was enclosed with the reply, and the Allahabad High Court held that the object of issuance of show-cause notice under Section 50(4) of the Act was to give to the party concern not only an opportunity to submit an explanation as to why the security may not be demanded, but also to explain why the goods may not be seized, and if in response to such a show-cause notice, the party produces necessary documents so as to remove the discrepancy, if any, found at the time of checking, the authorities are legally bound to consider the same before ordering for the seizure of the goods.
The ratio of the above judgment is applied to the facts of the present case that at the time of seizure, an invalid declaration form (Form XVI) was produced. However, subsequently, pursuant to the show-cause notice, the valid import declaration form (Form XVI) was produced, and it was not the case of the Assessing Officer that the valid import declaration form was fake, or there was discrepancy in the documents.
In the present case, keeping in view the above judgment referred to by learned counsel for the revisionist, the revision(s) is being allowed, and the order of the Tribunal is being set-aside.
-
2024 (9) TMI 762
Legality of demanding security when all the relevant information relating to the said goods was already uploaded on the website of the department and the department had duly acknowledged the receipt of the uploaded information - whether Tribunal without deciding the fact relating to the intention of the dealer was legally justified to upload the demanded security when the said goods were being imported as raw material for the manufacture of Aata, Maida and Suji which are exempted under the VAT Act?
HELD THAT:- A perusal of the order nowhere shows that with respect to the goods in transit, there is any intension of evasion of tax, and the Assessing Officer has accepted the invoice and weighment slip and has finalized the assessment order. Since the Assessing Officer has accepted all the documents presented before him by the revisionist, the impugned order demanding security of Rs. 2,26,725/- (40% of the value of goods) is liable to be set-aside.
The present revision is being allowed, and the order dated 31.05.2014 and the order dated 11.06.2014 are being set-aside.
Application disposed off.
-
2024 (9) TMI 611
Taxability - State Advisory Price (SAP) voluntarily paid by the petitioner mills to cane growers - HELD THAT:- In the present case, there is nothing to show that the advance payments are irrecoverable or that the petitioner does not intend to recover the same. However, and admittedly, the payment of SAP by the petitioner is voluntarily, though under compulsion, and not under a condition imposed either by contract or statute.
It is agreed that the payment of SAP is voluntary, traceable solely to maintaining goodwill and a congenial relationship with the cane growers. Such payments cannot be taken to be part of purchase price for the purpose determining turnover under the Act as the payments to be taken into account for that purpose can only be the payments mandated to be paid under the statute. Incidentally, the petitioner is under a statutory obligation to pay tax in respect of SAP from the year 2018 onwards and the petitioner confirms that such payments are being made.
The impugned order is set aside - petition allowed.
-
2024 (9) TMI 547
Challenge to seizure order - direction of High Court that 50% of the disputed tax should be deposited within three weeks from the date of the order - HELD THAT:- This appeal has been pending since 2011, the consequence of which is that further proceedings pursuant to the show cause notice for violation of Section 52 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 have not been taken up.
In view of the above, the respondent- State Department are directed to initiate the proceedings, if any and pass a final order within a period of three months from today. In view of the fact that the goods were released pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the bank guarantee need not be renewed after three months.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2024 (9) TMI 546
Requirement to issue SCN for imposition of penalty - requirement to provide opportunity of showing cause in writing against the imposition of a penalty - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- As per Section 72 (2) of the Karnataka Value Added Act, 2003, before a decision is taken for imposition of any penalty, show-cause notice has to be issued to the assessee and after being given an opportunity of showing cause in writing against the imposition of a penalty, the decision to impose or not to impose the penalty must be taken. No doubt, the quantum of penalty is prescribed under the said provision but the fact that the opportunity to show-cause in writing has been prescribed clearly indicates that the imposition of penalty is not automatic. It is by way of exercise of discretion given the facts and circumstances of the case, we thus find that in Section 45 (5) and (6) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, there is no such provision for giving an opportunity to the assessee to show-cause against the imposition of the penalty; therein the imposition of penalty is automatic.
The suo moto revision undertaken under Section 64 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, was wholly unnecessary. The High Court was therefore justified in setting aside the order of the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated 31.03.2017 and restoring the order passed by the First Appellate Authority dated 27.11.2012.
SLP dismissed.
-
2024 (9) TMI 545
Scope of the word “sale” under Section 2(g) of the Central Tax Act, 1956, amended vide Act 20 of 2002 with effect from 11.05.2002 - taxability of work contracts undertaken outside the jurisdiction of Tamil Nadu - HELD THAT:- Insofar as the applicability of Section 2(g) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, w.e.f. 11.05.2002, if had the works done by the petitioner are work contracts undertaken prior to the said cutoff date, the same could easily be treated as non-taxable works undertaken by the dealer concerned. As per the case in hand, admittedly, the works were undertaken in the Assessment Year 1999-2000, that is well before the cutoff date of 11.05.2002. In view of the contract documents, which have been placed, there are no doubt over the works that have been undertaken by the petitioner to state that they are work contracts. If those are work contracts undertaken by the petitioner, that too prior to 11.05.2002, the said work contracts cannot be brought under the purview of the tax net under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
The order impugned, passed by the Tribunal insofar as allowing the appeal filed before the Tribunal by the State as well as the dismissal of the COP filed by the petitioner, is to be reversed or set aside - this Tax Case Revision is allowed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent Revenue.
-
2024 (9) TMI 398
Challenge to order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 52 of the M.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2002 - period w.e.f. 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016 - HELD THAT:- The petitioner, after receipt of notice dated 22.03.2017 issued under Section 52 of the M.P. VAT Act, appeared before the Commercial Tax Officer and submitted an explanation which was not found satisfactory. Thereafter, an appeal was filed and the Assessing Officer imposed the penalty of Rs. 29,76,757/-, against the said order, the petitioner neither preferred the Commercial Tax Officer nor before the Appellate Board and raised the issue of limitation. Once the petitioner has preferred the first appeal, therefore, the petitioner can also prefer VATA before this Court.
The petitioner submits that since the petitioner did not raise the issue of limitation before the First Appellate Authority, therefore, the petitioner is precluded from raising this issue in VATA. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court.
HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGE (P) LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [2014 (9) TMI 585 - SUPREME COURT] has held that no writ lies if the efficacious remedy of statutory appeal is available.
Petition dismissed.
-
2024 (9) TMI 304
Challenge to orders passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Haryana - inter-state sale - issuance of Form 'F' for stock transfer of goods from Faridabad - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the Bihar Government to supply energy food. However, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner firm manufactures energy food at Faridabad factory and also at branches in a case of necessity, transfers energy Food at places of its requirement, if the same is not met by the local branch. The petitioner firm has transferred energy Food of specific formulation of its branches at Patna, Madras and Kanpur in pursuance of a prior contract and orders for supply from branch were already contracted and orders for supply from branch were already in hand and goods were supplied as per agreement.
It has been held by the Supreme Court in M/s Bharat Electric Limited vs Union of India [1996 (4) TMI 419 - SUPREME COURT] that interstate sales Tax is leviable in the state where goods are manufactured for specific purpose and also from where movement of goods takes place.
In the ordinary course, the present case ought to have been transferred to the Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority, however, this Court finds that a corporate guarantee has been furnished by M/s Hindustan Level Limited for and on behalf of the petitioner in terms of the directions issued on 30.05.2005, wherein this Court directed that the guarantor shall be bound by the terms of both the affidavits which have been filed by and on behalf of the petitioner.
Petition dismissed.
-
2024 (9) TMI 173
Challenge to re-assessment for the year 2012-2013 - petitioner contends that the Liquidator was never issued with notice of re-assessment and could not participate in the re-assessment - applicability of moatorium - HELD THAT:- In the present case, admittedly, in the case of the assessee the liquidation proceedings had commenced by Annexure-2 order dated 06.02.2020 and the Liquidator was appointed. As we saw from Annexure-C, the notices were all issued to the e-mail of the assessee after the Liquidator was appointed which makes it clear that the Liquidator was never informed of the re-assessment proceedings. In such circumstances, Annexure-C suffers from the defect of the assessee having not been heard.
In the present case, initially the State had also objected to the filing of the writ petition, which was without getting an approval from the NCLT. When the objection was raised, the Liquidator had approached the NCLT for ex post facto approval which was denied. An appeal to the National Company Appellate Tribunal, however, found favour with the contention and declared the writ petition filed to be one with proper approval as granted by the Appellate Tribunal.
The Liquidator should be noticed and participated in the re-assessment proceedings. Only for violation of principles of natural justice, we set aside the Annexure-C order without going into the merits of the matter. The Liquidator shall appear before the Assessing Officer on 21.08.2024 after filing proper objections. The assessment order at Annexure-C itself shall be considered as a notice for re-assessment. After filing the objection, the Assessing Officer shall hear the matter on the same day or any other date with intimation to the Liquidator, who is representing the assessee.
Petition allowed.
-
2024 (9) TMI 59
Jurisdiction of order passed u/s 34 (8A) of the VAT Act for the year 2013-14 - whether the order u/s 34 (8A) of the VAT Act can be passed in absence of any proceedings pending under the VAT Act? - HELD THAT:- The assessment order for the year 2013-14 was passed on 31.3.2018 and the said order attained its finality as neither the petitioner has challenged the same nor any reassessment or revision is contemplated within the statutory period of limitation. Meaning thereby, there was no proceedings pending under the VAT Act at the time when the impugned order under Section 34 (8A) of the VAT Act was passed.
The authorities could not have exercised its power pursuant to Section 34 (8A) of the VAT Act when the condition precedent for exercising power has not been satisfied, namely, pendency of any proceedings under the VAT Act. Thus, the assessment proceedings under Section 34 (8A) of the VAT Act cannot be justified. Learned Assistant Government Pleader could not even point out about pendency of any proceedings under the VAT Act.
Since the basic condition of Section 34 (8A) of the VAT Act, namely, ‘during the course of any proceeding under the Act’ is not satisfied and no proceedings under the Act are pending, the present petition deserves to be allowed.
Petition allowed.
........
|
9911796707
