9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 473X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessment orders passed by the respondent no.1. (v) to quash the impugned revision order passed by the respondent no.2. (vi) to direct the respondents to allow exemption to the petitioner as per eligibility certificate and annul the order of assessment framed by respondent no.1. (vii) to hold that the constitution of task force was illegal and its report is not admissible as biased report devoid of available facts and evidences. (viii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit may also be granted to the petitioner." 3. It is submitted by Shri Nema that the controversy involved in these cases are squarely covered by a decision of this Court in W.P. No.15484/2007 (M/s Shri Sharda Domestic Fuels Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of M.P. and others) decided on 08.01.2013 and prayed that similar directions may be issued in these cases also. 4. The aforesaid position is not disputed by Shri Rahul Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. In M/s Shri Sharda Domestic Fuels Pvt. Ltd. (supra) this Bench considering the controversy, held thus:- "As the controversies involved in the aforesaid matters are identical, we have heard all the matters ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the Assessing Officer and the Revisional Authority, the Revisional Authority recorded a finding that no proper evidence was collected in respect of the sales for the year 1997-98. The report of the task force was non-speaking and without any supporting documentary evidence. After three years of the initial assessment order, if the unit is found closed in physical inspection, then on the basis of this, a finding cannot be recorded that before three years the unit was not functional. If the allegations are that the unit had not used the raw material in the manufacturing of coke briquettes and has sold it in the market for tax evasion, then for that purpose, the documentary evidence could have been collected and an opportunity ought to have been extended to the assessee for explanation, and thereafter a speaking order could have been passed by the Assessing Officer. The findings recorded by the Assessing Officer on the basis of report of task force was not on sound reasoning. (c) In respect of the allegations, the assessee was not extended an opportunity to explain and to prove evidence. During alleged period, Manager DIC, Labour Department, Deputy Collector, Sub-Divisional Office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ply in respect of following queries; (i) the report of task force dated 24.5.2000; (ii) the statement of local Sarpanch ; (iii) in respect of verification by the Department that most of the purchaser units were not found in existence; (iv) in respect of nonpayment of sale price by cheque or draft. The Assessing Officer had also directed the assessee to file reply on the aforesaid points. It appears that case was listed on 14.03.05, 8.8.05, 30.9.05, 24.10.05 and was adjourned for filing of the reply. On 6.1.06, when none had appeared for the assessee, the matter was closed, and on 12.01.06, the Assessing Officer passed an order reiterating the earlier order and same tax and penalty was again imposed upon the petitioner. 4. Against the Order (Annexure P/8) dated 12.01.06, a revision was preferred by the petitioner, but vide Order (Annexure P/11) dated 19.07.06 the revision was dismissed. These orders are under challenge in this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners submit; (i) that remand order (Annexure P/5) was not followed by the Assessing Officer, and even at the second time the Revisional Authority while passing Order (P/11) has not considered the fact th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a format was prepared and by the help of computer and all the assessment orders were passed which were not speaking orders; (vi) That, which transactions were found bogus, the Assessing Officer should specify and obtain an explanation from the assessee and thereafter to decide the matter; (vii) That, the report of CBI was not available on record. The report of CBI could have been treated as a report only, but on the basis of such report, the assessment order could not have been passed." 8. From perusal of the order after the remand (Annexure P/8), it appears that the Assessing Officer on page 5 of the order recorded only one fact that no evidence was produced by the assessee inspite of allowing time to produce the record, and on the basis of this, the Assessing Officer had passed the assessment order reiterating the earlier assessment order. While as per the remand order, the Assessing Officer was required to frame a fresh assessment order after complying the remand order passed by the Revisional Authority, but it appears that mechanically assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer. The Revisional Authority while deciding the matter by an Order dated 19.07.06 (Annexure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
