2015 (3) TMI 343 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Evasion of tax - Intention to defraud - Purchases made without knowledge of petitioner by the agent - Challenge to assessment order - Opportunity of hearing not granted - Violation of principle of natural justice - Held that - Once the denial of purchases twelve in number were made by the revision petitioner in the background of alleging fraud, etc., against their agent, it was incumbent upon the assessing officer to gather further information from Mr. Madhu by examining him and also gather other details from M/s. Oriental Timbers, how the payments were made to Oriental Timbers whether by Mr. Madhu in cash or any bank channel referring to the source of revision petitioner being the payer of the amounts. In the absence of such information, we are of the opinion the concerned authorities have not acted based on the material placed before them totally ignoring the contentions raised by the revision petitioner. - as the very genesis for arriving at the conclusion by the assessing authority is defective, the consequential orders are of no value. Hence, all the three orders of assessing authority, first appellate authority and the Tribunal are set aside remitting back the matter to the assessing officer to consider the matter afresh, in the light of the above observations, after giving opportunity to the revision petitioner - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Allegations of tax evasion and denial of purchases leading to additions in turnover under the KVAT Act. Violation of principles of natural justice and erroneous assessment by authorities.

Analysis:
1. The revision petitioner, engaged in timber business, faced allegations of concealing purchases made from another dealer, leading to additions in turnover under the KVAT Act. The petitioner contended that the purchases were made by an agent without their knowledge, and the tax was promptly paid by the first seller. The assessing officer made additions to the turnover without giving the petitioner a fair opportunity to establish their stand, violating principles of natural justice.

2. The first appellate authority treated the assessment as a penalty, and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal without considering the petitioner's contentions. The Tribunal failed to address the petitioner's claim that their agent clandestinely used their TIN number for the purchases. The petitioner provided evidence through letters exchanged with the seller, indicating their efforts to clarify the situation, which were not considered during the assessment process.

3. The assessing officer did not verify crucial details such as vehicle numbers or driver names regarding the alleged purchases. Despite the petitioner's efforts to uncover the truth and taking legal action against the agent for fraud, this information was not part of the assessment process. The authorities failed to gather necessary information from the agent and the seller to establish the petitioner's innocence.

4. The High Court found the genesis of the assessing authority's conclusion to be defective, rendering the subsequent orders invalid. Therefore, all orders by the assessing authority, first appellate authority, and the Tribunal were set aside. The matter was remitted back to the assessing officer to reevaluate the case, considering the petitioner's contentions and completing the process within three months from the judgment's receipt. The Court emphasized the importance of giving the revision petitioner a fair opportunity to present their case.