2023 (5) TMI 646 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Framing of Assessment under Section 29(2)(c) of the PVAT Act, 2005 - period 2006-2007 to 2009-2010 - it is alleged that Assessing Authority, while framing assessment under Section 29(2) had not followed the procedure laid down under Section 29(5) of the Act, 2005 - HELD THAT - In the present case, the tax has already been deposited by the appellant as observed by the Tribunal in order dated 31.05.2018 (Annexure A-8). Moreover, on merits, after examining the order dated 01.08.2012 passed by the Deputy Excise Taxation Commissioner, (Appeals), U.T., Chandigarh, it is found that the assessment has been made after examining documents which were recovered during the inspection from the business premises of the appellant and not as a best Judgment Assessment. Even though the ETO, who had passed the impugned order, had been allotted ward No. 1 as per notifications (Annexures A-5 and A-5/A). However, it is not the case of the appellant that ETO was not competent to pass the assessment order with regard to residents of any ward. The Deputy Excise Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal had proceeded to examine the case on merits in detail and the order with respect to liability of the assessee to make payment of tax pursuant to the search conducted does not require any interference on facts as well as no substantial question of law arises to interfere with the finding of facts given by the Assessing Officer, Deputy Excise Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal. At this stage, no case is made out to remand the matter back to the concerned ETO of the ward to pass a fresh order on merits which has already been examined in detail by all the three authorities below. Hence, no substantial question of law arises to interfere in the case on the question of jurisdiction only as this Court is of the view that the matter will not be remanded back to the concerned Assessing Officer as the documents and evidence will remain same and no second opinion could have been formed with respect to the assessment made for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
The issues involved in this case are related to the framing of assessment under Section 29(2) of the PVAT Act, 2005, the determination of liability date, the procedure followed by the Assessing Authority, the entitlement to claim Input Tax Credit, and the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer.

Framing of Assessment:
The appellant challenged the assessment framed by the Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Designated Officer for the period 2006-2007 to 2009-2010, creating tax demands. The Tribunal upheld the assessment, stating that it was done based on accounts found at the business premises and not as a Best Judgment Assessment. The appellant had already deposited the tax amount, rendering the appeals infructuous.

Determination of Liability Date:
The appellant argued that the Assessing Authority wrongly fixed the liability date as 01.07.2000, contending that the liability commencement date was not determined as per law. The appellant claimed that the liability date should be quashed as it was not in accordance with the law.

Procedure Followed by Assessing Authority:
The appellant raised concerns that the Assessing Authority did not follow the procedure laid down in Section 29(5) of the Act while framing the assessment. The appellant argued that the assessment was against the principles of natural justice and should be quashed.

Entitlement to Claim Input Tax Credit:
The appellant asserted that they should be entitled to claim Input Tax Credit under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005. They argued that the Officer failed to consider that the appellant was still in business operations from the date of registration application, making the withdrawal application void. The appellant contended that the orders passed by the lower courts should be set aside.

Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer:
The appellant contended that the Assessing Officer who passed the order dated 27.12.2010 had no jurisdiction to examine the case. They argued that the officer did not have the authority to pass the assessment order, as per the notifications regarding jurisdiction. The appellant further argued that the deposit of tax demands should not be a ground for dismissing the appeals as infructuous.

Conclusion:
After examining the arguments and records, the Court found that the tax was already deposited by the appellant and the assessment was made based on recovered documents, not as a Best Judgment Assessment. The Court concluded that there was no substantial question of law to interfere with the findings of the lower authorities. The Court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose to interfere with the case on the question of jurisdiction. The matter was not remanded back to the Assessing Officer as no new evidence or documents were presented that would change the assessment made for the relevant years.