2016 (2) TMI 437 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Writ petition Challenging the order of default assessment of tax, interest u/s 32 of the DVAT Act and the other an order levying penalty under Section 33 of the DVAT Act) for the third quarter of 2013-14 as well as two penalty notices - computer/machine generated notices - Held that - The above order in Form DVAT-24 is in a pre-printed format and is unsigned. Therefore, it is not possible to make out which of the above alternatives provided in the captioned preamble paragraph applies to the case on hand. It fails to spell out the reasons for the VATO concluding that the purchases in question were made from suspicious/bogus dealers. In effect, it is a non-speaking order and it is impossible to discern what reasons weighed with the VATO while issuing such an order. Orders set aside - The proceedings emanating from the notice dated 29th December, 2014 issued under Section 59 (2) of the DVAT Act revived before the VATO concerned. - Matter remanded back.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to orders of default assessment, penalty notices, cancellation of registration, validity of orders, confusion regarding subsequent notices, application of penalty provisions, reasons for default assessment order, verification report discrepancies, confusion due to machine-generated orders.

Analysis:
1. The writ petition challenges two orders of default assessment, penalty notices, and cancellation of registration. The subsequent order dated 17th July, 2015 revoked the default assessment orders due to technical errors in the system-generated notices dated 19th June, 2015. The validity of the order dated 9th March, 2015, and penalty notices dated 16th December, 2014 is in question.

2. The cancellation of registration by the Respondent was based on an error as both the show cause notice and the cancellation order were issued on the same day. The cancellation was proposed from the date of registration, but it was later revoked by the Objection Hearing Authority (OHA) on 31st August, 2015.

3. The order dated 9th March, 2015, demanded payment for tax and interest for the third quarter of 2013, alleging purchases from 'suspicious/bogus' dealers. The Respondent's stand was that the Petitioner failed to produce records despite multiple notices, leading to the default assessment order.

4. The Petitioner argued that subsequent notices created confusion about the survival of the order dated 9th March, 2015. The penalty provisions referred to in the notices were incorrect, and the default assessment order lacked reasons for concluding purchases were from bogus dealers.

5. The order dated 9th March, 2015 was machine-generated, unsigned, and lacked details of the hearing before the VATO. The 'Verification Report' showed discrepancies as the system verified purchase transactions from dealers whose registrations were canceled, raising doubts about the system's accuracy.

6. The Court found that confusion arose from machine-generated orders and mistakes by the VATO. Despite the usual appeal process, the Court intervened under Article 226 to set aside the impugned orders dated 9th March, 2015, and penalty notices dated 16th December, 2014.

7. The Court directed the revival of proceedings from the notice dated 29th December, 2014, before the VATO, ensuring a fair hearing, provision of materials to the Petitioner, and a fresh order within eight weeks, free from previous influences.

8. The petition was disposed of accordingly.