2015 (8) TMI 300 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Reversal of input tax credit - Held that - Admittedly, the petitioner received notices in respect of the assessment years in question dated 09.10.2014 and again the respondent has issued respective notices dated 12.01.2015 and finally, the petitioner was issued with the 3rd respective notices dated 24.04.2015. It is also an admitted position that the petitioner, after receipt of all these notices, appeared before the respondent on 13.02.2015 in person along with original invoices. When that be the case, it is not known why the petitioner has not gone before the respondent with a written reply. When the petitioner appeared before the respondent, in all fairness, he should have submitted his replies. - when the petitioner has received three notices on 09.10.2014, 12.01.2015 and 24.04.2015 for all the assessment years, finding that he has not filed any reply whatsoever to any one of the notices, this Court is of the view that the respondent is right in passing the impugned orders - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging impugned proceedings by Commercial Tax Officer based on Circular No.7/2014 and failure to consider details submitted by the petitioner before passing orders.

Analysis:
The judgment involves three writ petitions filed by a business entity represented by its Partner, challenging proceedings by the Commercial Tax Officer. The petitioner argued that the impugned orders were unsustainable as they overlooked Circular No.7/2014 issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and failed to consider details submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner, a registered distributor, had appeared before the respondent with original invoices after receiving notices proposing VAT on discounts and reversal of ITC adjusted. Despite providing the required documents, the impugned orders were issued abruptly, contrary to the Circular emphasizing the need to afford an opportunity to the dealer before revision. The petitioner contended that this action violated a Supreme Court decision.

The Court noted that the petitioner received multiple notices for the assessment years in question and appeared before the respondent with original invoices but failed to submit written replies to any of the notices. The Court emphasized that the petitioner should have submitted replies when appearing before the respondent. As the petitioner did not file any reply to the notices received, the Court concluded that the respondent was justified in passing the impugned orders. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed, allowing the petitioner to challenge the decision before the appellate authority. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were also dismissed.