2014 (9) TMI 506 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Difference in stock - Reply to SCN not filed - Held that - In response to the notice dated 17.4.2014 the petitioner has submitted it s reply on 19.5.2014 and along with the reply also enclosed a cheque bearing No.001055 dated 19.5.2014 for a sum of 1, 22, 306/- and it has produced copy of the Letter Delivery Book which is available at page No.9 of the typed-set of documents acknowledging receipt of the same and it would disclose that it was received by the Office of the respondent on 19.5.2014. However the impugned order proceeds on the footing that the petitioner/assessee did not file any objection and in the considered opinion of the Court the same is contrary to record and hence on the sole ground the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the matter be remanded for fresh adjudication - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Respondent's issuance of notice and subsequent order without considering petitioner's response.
2. Allegation of non-receipt of petitioner's objection by the respondent.
3. Request for interference by the petitioner due to contrary statements in the impugned order.
4. Submissions by both parties regarding the due procedure followed by the respondent.
5. Court's decision to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for fresh adjudication.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a registered dealer under TNVAT and Central Sales Tax Act, claimed Input Tax Credit (ITC) for local purchases and filed returns for the assessment year 2010-2011. However, after an inspection where minor discrepancies were found, the respondent issued a notice dated 17.4.2014. Despite the petitioner's submission of a reply on 19.5.2014, enclosing a cheque, the respondent passed an order stating no objection was received, leading to the filing of the writ petition.

2. The petitioner's counsel argued that the reply was submitted along with a cheque, which was duly encashed, contradicting the claim of non-receipt of objections in the impugned order. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel contended that the order was correctly passed following due procedure, opposing any interference.

3. Upon careful consideration, the Court found discrepancies in the respondent's order, noting that the petitioner did respond with a cheque and provided evidence of acknowledgment by the respondent's office. Consequently, the Court decided to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for fresh adjudication by the respondent.

4. The Court partially allowed the writ petition, emphasizing the need for the respondent to reconsider the petitioner's reply dated 13.5.2014, submitted on 19.5.2014, and make a decision based on the merits and in accordance with the law within a specified timeframe, without imposing any costs on either party.

5. The judgment highlights the importance of proper consideration of responses by authorities and adherence to procedural fairness in tax matters, ensuring that decisions are based on accurate information and due process, ultimately upholding the principles of natural justice and procedural regularity in administrative actions.