9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 258 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRectification of the assessment order - KST Act - CST Act - HELD THAT - This Court is not adjudicating upon the orders of the Appellate Forums to address the grievances of the petitioner in as much as the power vested with the Appellate Authority to condone the delay of 200 days in filing the appeal. Moreover assailing the order of the Tribunal whereby the order of the Appellate Authority is confirmed Sales Tax Revision Petitions are pending before this Court. In such circumstances the plea of the petitioner to analyze the provisions of Section 20 and to arrive at a decision on this aspect is unreasonable/unjustifiable and cannot be countenanced. This Court is not adjudicating upon the order of the Appellate Authorities in this writ petition - petition is bereft of any merits and is dismissed.
Issues:
Challenge to endorsement rejecting rectification request of assessment order dated 26.05.2004 for assessment year 2000-01 under KST Act and CST Act. Interpretation of Section 20 of KST Act regarding limitation for filing appeal before Appellate Authority. Request for rectification based on company's financial difficulties and BIFR declaration. Applicability of Section 25A of KST Act for rectification of assessment order. Parallel proceedings initiated by petitioner regarding rectification request. Interpretation of judgments in M/s. Vijay Mining and Infra Corp. Pvt. Ltd. case and West Bengal Infrastructure Dev. Fin. Corpn Ltd. case. Jurisdiction of the Court to adjudicate on Appellate Forums' orders and rectification requests. Analysis: The petitioner challenged an endorsement rejecting the rectification request of the assessment order dated 26.05.2004 for the assessment year 2000-01 under the KST Act and CST Act. The petitioner, a limited company engaged in manufacturing and trading, faced tax liabilities during the assessment year, leading to appeals and subsequent rejection by the Appellate Authority and Tribunal. The petitioner sought rectification based on financial difficulties and BIFR declaration, but the request was rejected by respondent No.3, leading to the writ petition. The petitioner argued that the Appellate Authority and Tribunal failed to consider the financial difficulties faced by the company and the BIFR declaration, requesting leniency in rectifying the assessment order. The petitioner cited the order in M/s. Vijay Mining and Infra Corp. Pvt. Ltd. case and the judgment in West Bengal Infrastructure Dev. Fin. Corpn Ltd. case to support their contentions. The Court noted that it was not adjudicating on the Appellate Forums' orders or rectification requests, as Sales Tax Revision Petitions were pending before the Court. The Court found the petitioner's plea to analyze Section 20 regarding limitation and rectification requests unreasonable, stating that the Division Bench had exclusive jurisdiction in such matters. Regarding the rectification request made in 2009 and reminder in 2018, the Court observed delays at every stage and questioned the applicability of Section 25A for rectifying the mistake apparent from the record. The Court highlighted the lackadaisical attitude of the petitioner and the submission of statutory forms after significant delays. The Court dismissed the petition, stating that the judgments cited by the petitioner were not applicable to the case and that the petition lacked merit. The Court emphasized that it was not adjudicating on the Appellate Authorities' orders and rectification requests in this writ petition.
|
