2017 (2) TMI 233 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Order for reversing the Input tax credit (ITC) and levy of penalty - order had been passed, without service of notice - notice returned on account of non-availability of address of petitioner - Held that - the respondent had available in its record, not only the local address of the petitioner, but also his address at Delhi. Therefore, had the notice dated 29.07.2016 been directed to the petitioner s address, at Delhi, which I am told, is his business address, one would not have come to such a pass. Therefore, in my view, all avenues of effecting service on petitioner were not exhausted. The respondent s proposal to reverse ITC and levy penalty, consequently, did not get communicated to the petitioner - impugned order set aside - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge against order dated 07.10.2016 for lack of notice service.

Analysis:
The writ petition challenged an order dated 07.10.2016, citing the absence of proper notice service to the petitioner as the primary grievance. The petitioner contended that a notice proposing to reverse the Input Tax Credit (ITC) and impose a penalty, dated 29.07.2016, was not served upon him. The respondent claimed that the petitioner had returned the notice, prompting the court to request a counter affidavit with the postal covers to verify the service details.

Subsequently, the learned Additional Government Pleader acknowledged that the postal cover's endorsement did not indicate the notice was returned but rather stated that the addressee was not found, with the specific wording "No such firm in this address." The record revealed that the impugned order dated 07.10.2016 was served on the petitioner at a Delhi address, despite the availability of both local and Delhi addresses in the respondent's records. The court opined that all avenues for serving the petitioner were not exhausted, leading to the failure of communication regarding the proposal to reverse ITC and levy a penalty.

Considering the respondent's access to the petitioner's Delhi address for service, the court agreed with the petitioner's contention that the impugned order should be set aside. Consequently, the order dated 07.10.2016 was annulled, granting the respondent the liberty to issue a fresh order in compliance with the law. The petitioner was directed to appear before the respondent on a specified date, subject to adjustment if necessary. The writ petition was disposed of according to the mentioned directions, without any costs incurred, leading to the closure of the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition (W.M.P.).