9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (2) TMI 386 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxLiability towards the tax and interest - KGST Act - assessee contested against the order of fastening liability without notice to him - Held that - As huge liability is sought to be fastened on the petitioner and the petitioner did not have an opportunity to file his reply or contradict the allegations against him he should be given an opportunity to file his objections to the pre-assessment notice. Order affixing liability will stand set aside & petitioner will appear before the 1st respondent on or before 2/2/2013.
Issues:
Challenge to order under Section 17(3) of KGST Act for assessment year 2000-01 due to lack of notice to petitioner. Analysis: The petitioner challenged Ext.P4, an order under Section 17(3) of the KGST Act for the assessment year 2000-01, imposing a liability of Rs. 84,97,751 on the petitioner for tax and interest without proper notice. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without notice, while Ext.P4 mentioned that a pre-assessment notice was sent via registered post but returned with an "absent intimation" endorsement. The Government Pleader confirmed that the notice was sent and unclaimed by the petitioner despite intimation. The court noted the petitioner's dispute regarding the notice's service but found it difficult to fault the postal authorities since the notice was returned with the mentioned endorsement. However, considering the substantial liability imposed without the petitioner's chance to respond, the court decided to give the petitioner an opportunity to file objections to the pre-assessment notice. Consequently, the court set aside Ext.P4 and directed the petitioner to appear before the 1st respondent with a copy of the judgment and writ petition by a specified date. Upon appearance, the petitioner would receive a copy of the pre-assessment notice, allowing ten days to respond. Subsequently, a hearing would be granted, followed by a fresh assessment order. The court explicitly stated that failure to comply would result in the revival of Ext.P4, enabling the respondents to recover the due amounts. The petitioner was instructed to provide a copy of the judgment and writ petition to the 1st respondent for compliance, and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
|
