9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 624 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRequest for rectification rejected - Validity of assessment order - Section 25 of the KVAT Act - alleged suppression of inter-State purchase - whether the first respondent, after realising the necessity to furnish the soft copy of details of inter-State purchases, can be allowed to complete the assessment without satisfactorily demonstrating that the soft copy is given, thereafter an opportunity is provided to petitioner /assessee and necessary orders are passed? HELD THAT - The very purpose of availing rectification power through Ext.P4 is only to set this anomalous situation straight. This Court is persuaded to set aside Ext.P5 and remit the matter to first respondent for consideration and disposal in accordance with law - With a view to give quietus to the other procedural aspects which is being canvassed by the petitioner, the Court directs the first respondent to give soft copy under an acknowledgment of the details on which the first respondent intends to rely on for determining the inter- State purchases, within two weeks from today. Petition allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
Challenge to Ext.P3 order of assessment under Section 25 of the KVAT Act and Ext.P5 order refusing the request for rectification made through Ext.P4. Analysis: 1. Challenge to Ext.P3 Order: The petitioner contested the legality of Ext.P3 order of assessment under Section 25 of the KVAT Act. The petitioner raised concerns regarding alleged suppression of inter-State purchases and errors in the computation of the same in the order. The petitioner sought rectification through Ext.P4 due to apparent errors in Ext.P3. However, the first respondent issued Ext.P5, refusing the rectification request, stating that no detailed objections were submitted by the petitioner regarding the alleged errors. The petitioner argued that Exts.P3 and P5 were illegal, arbitrary, and lacked jurisdiction. 2. Rectification Request and Ext.P5 Order: Ext.P5 order explained that the rectification application by the petitioner was rejected as no errors were found apparent on the face of records. The order highlighted that eligible deductions were already given in the assessment order, but certain deductions claimed by the petitioner were not allowed due to lack of supporting documents. The first respondent concluded that the rectification application could not be entertained, leading to the rejection through Ext.P5. 3. Legal Considerations: The court analyzed the contentions of both parties, focusing on the petitioner's request for rectification and the respondent's justifications for rejecting the same. The court emphasized the importance of natural justice principles and the need for proper examination of objections raised by the petitioner. It questioned the adequacy of the first respondent's actions in providing necessary details and opportunities to the petitioner before completing the assessment. 4. Court Decision: After evaluating the circumstances and finding discrepancies in the service of soft copies and acknowledgments, the court set aside Ext.P5 and remitted the matter back to the first respondent for reconsideration. The court directed the first respondent to provide a soft copy of details related to inter-State purchases, allowing the petitioner to file reconciliation statements or evidence. The court set a deadline for the first respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P4, ensuring compliance with legal requirements and procedural fairness. In conclusion, the court's decision aimed to address the procedural irregularities and ensure that the rectification process was conducted in accordance with the law, emphasizing the importance of providing opportunities for the petitioner to address concerns regarding the assessment order under the KVAT Act.
|
