9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (7) TMI 910 - HC - GSTInitiation of proceedings for recovery of the outstanding dues - lack of evidence, that the vehicle was intercepted at a distance of about 25 to 30 Kilometers from the Cold storage - HELD THAT - The Appellate Authority has affirmed the impugned order passed by the Assessing Officer, without there being any evidence and finding regarding intention of the petitioner to evade tax. This difference of approach adopted by the Appellate Authority in dealing with the contention of the petitioner and the department in as much as the petitioner's contention has been rejected for want of evidence whereas the department's contention has been accepted, although there was no evidence to support that also, cannot be appreciated by the Court. The Appellate Authority should act in a judicial manner, adopting the same approach towards the Assessee and the department. The order dated 06.12.2023 passed by the Appellate Authority is hereby quashed - Petition allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
Challenge to validity of order passed by Assessing Authority/Commercial Tax Officer under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Imposition of penalty without establishing intention to evade tax. Discrepancy in decision-making process by Appellate Authority. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the validity of an order passed by the Assessing Authority/Commercial Tax Officer, directing a payment of Rs. 8,33,000 failing which recovery proceedings would be initiated. The order was based on a violation of Section 20 of I.G.S.T. Act and Rule 46(O), involving a discrepancy in the transportation of goods. Despite being given an opportunity to explain, a penalty was imposed simultaneously, rendering the explanation process meaningless. The petitioner's appeal against the punishment was dismissed by the Appellate Authority, which failed to establish the Assessee's intention to evade tax, a crucial element for penalty imposition. The Appellate Authority's decision was questioned due to a differing approach towards the petitioner and the department. While rejecting the petitioner's contention for lack of evidence regarding the distance of interception from the cold storage, the Appellate Authority affirmed the Assessing Officer's order without evidence of the petitioner's intention to evade tax. This inconsistent treatment was deemed unacceptable by the Court. The Court emphasized the need for a judicial and consistent approach by the Appellate Authority towards both the Assessee and the department. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the Appellate Authority's order and remanding the matter for a fresh decision. The Appellate Authority was instructed to reevaluate the case in accordance with the law, within three months of the order's production, ensuring a fair opportunity for the petitioner to present their case and addressing all submissions appropriately.
|
