2018 (9) TMI 726 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of Notice of proposal - assessment years 2010-2011 to 2014-2015 - mismatch and purchase made from registration cancelled dealers - Held that - As the present notice issued in respect of the mis-match issue is not in consonance with the order already passed by this Court, this Court is of the view that the present impugned notice, insofar as the mis-match issues are concerned, is liable to be set aside and the matter is to be remitted back to the Assessing Officer. Equally, in respect of the other issue, namely the purchase from the registration cancelled dealers is concerned, this Court finds that the notice does not give the details of cancellation of registration of the other end dealers and therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel, the petitioner will not be in a position to give an effective reply to the notice of proposal insofar as that issue is concerned - it is for the Assessing Officer to issue fresh notice in respect of that issue also with material particulars so as to enable the petitioner to give effective reply. Petition allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging notice of proposal for assessment years 2010-2011 to 2014-2015 regarding mis-match issue and purchases from registration cancelled dealers.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the notice of proposal, focusing on the mis-match issue and purchases made from registration cancelled dealers. The senior counsel argued that the notices lacked material details, such as the date of cancellation of registration of the dealers, hindering the petitioner's ability to respond effectively. The counsel requested setting aside the notice on these specific issues and remitting the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The Government Advocate contended that the petitioner could request details while responding and that this should not be a reason to interfere with the notice. However, she acknowledged similar notices being set aside previously by the Court.

The Court noted the petitioner's grievances regarding mismatch and purchases from cancelled dealers for each assessment year. Regarding the mis-match issue, the Court referred to a previous case where guidelines were provided on how to address it through a centralized mechanism. The Revenue was in the process of adopting this mechanism, but the current notice did not align with the Court's previous order. Therefore, the Court decided to set aside the notice on the mis-match issues and remit the matter to the Assessing Officer.

Additionally, the Court found that the notice lacked details on the cancellation of registration of the dealers related to purchases, as highlighted by the senior counsel. This omission hindered the petitioner's ability to respond effectively. Consequently, the Court directed the Assessing Officer to issue a fresh notice with the necessary particulars on this issue. The Court allowed the writ petitions in part, setting aside the impugned notices for the specified issues and remitting the matter back for reissuance with the required details. The petitioner was given four weeks to respond to other issues. No costs were imposed, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.