2021 (2) TMI 1154 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Levy of Entry Tax - Section 4 of the Entry Tax Act - no opportunity of personal hearing granted - HELD THAT - Pursuant to the order of remand, the petitioner appeared before second respondent and submitted their objection. The same is also enclosed at Page No.12 of the typed set of papers. Even though, this Court had specifically stated that the point of set off should also be dealt with, in the impugned order, dated 31.08.2020, I find that the set off point has not at all been dealt with. There is considerable force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the direction given by this Court has not been complied with by the second respondent. The second respondent need not issue any more hearing notice to the Writ Petitioner. All the materials are very much on record. The second respondent will consider the same and pass fresh orders in accordance with law - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Compliance with court directions regarding set off of Value Added Tax (VAT) against entry tax liability.
2. Adequacy of consideration of objections by the second respondent in the assessment process.

Analysis:

1. Compliance with Court Directions on VAT Set Off:
The petitioner, an assessee, challenged an adverse order and sought a set off of VAT against entry tax liability. The High Court, in an earlier order, remitted the matter to the second respondent for reconsideration, emphasizing the need to address the VAT set off issue. Despite this direction, the petitioner found that the set off point was not dealt with in the subsequent order dated 31.08.2020. The Court acknowledged the failure of the second respondent to comply with its directive, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order. The Court clarified that no further hearing notice was required, as all relevant materials were already on record. The second respondent was instructed to consider the objections and pass fresh orders in accordance with the law.

2. Consideration of Objections by Second Respondent:
Following the remand order, the petitioner appeared before the second respondent and submitted objections, including the VAT set off issue. However, the Court noted that the second respondent failed to address the set off point in the subsequent order. This failure to adequately consider the objections raised by the petitioner led to the Court setting aside the impugned order. The Court directed the second respondent to review all materials on record and issue fresh orders in compliance with legal requirements.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment focused on ensuring compliance with its directives regarding the set off of VAT against entry tax liability and the adequate consideration of objections by the second respondent during the assessment process. The Court emphasized the importance of following legal procedures and addressing all relevant issues raised by the petitioner to ensure a fair and just outcome.