9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 473X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ings. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is find that after narration of the facts, the Revisional Authority because of non-production of any material before it by the petitioners reiterated the earlier order only, while as per directions issued by the Revisional Authority the Assessing Authority was under an obligation to meet out all the directions, but it appears that the Assessing Officer impressed with the fact that no evidence was produced before it by the assessee reiterated the earlier order, while it was under an obligation to decide the matter as directed by the Revisional Authority. When the important and vital issues are not considered by the Assessing Officer, the assessment order after remand cannot be sustained under the law - the petitioner shall cause appearance before the Assessing Officer on 04.03.2013. - W.P. No.4323/2008, W.P. No.4314/2008,W.P. No.4315/2008,W.P. No.4317/2008,W.P. No.4318/2008,W.P. No.4320/2008,W.P. No.4321/2008 - - - Dated:- 13-2-2013 - Krishn Kumar Lahoti And M. A. Siddiqui,JJ. Shri Sumit Nema, Advocate for petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, Deputy Advocate General for respondents. ORDER Considering the common que ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t liable to pay commercial tax, entry tax, etc.on the purchase of coal and on the manufactured item, namely, coke briquettes. Petitioner was assessed for the assessment year 1997-98 and as per the initial assessment order, no tax was found imposed on the petitioner. It appears that a task force of the respondent/Department enquired a complaint and recorded a finding that petitioner and other petitioners were indulged in tax evasion activities, and, infact they were selling coal directly in the market without manufacture of coke briquettes. On the basis of report of task force, assessments of the petitioner/M/s Shri Sharda Domestic Fuels Pvt. Ltd., Katni and others were reopened for various years. On the basis of reopened assessment, Order (Annexure P/4) dated 28.12.02 was passed by which the petitioner was held liable for payment of tax Rs.5,22,750/- and penalty on the said amount. (a) This Order (Annexure P/4) was subject-matter in revision before the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Jabalpur in Revision Case No. 262/R/2003/Prantiya and Revision Case No. 255/R/2003/Entry Tax. By a common order in almost all the cases dated 10.05.04, the Addl. Commissioner, Commercial Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which was not a speaking order. In respect of the allegations against a trader, an opportunity ought to have been extended for explanation and for production of evidence, which was not extended. The explanation submitted by the assessee was not properly considered by the Assessing Officer and ex parte order was passed. On the aforesaid grounds, in the interest of justice, the Revisional Authority had remanded the matter with a direction to extend an opportunity to the assessee before reassessment and for verification of the sales by the Assessing Officer. The Revisional Authority had further found that it was also not verified how many purchasers were found bogus, and in this regard the explanation of the assessee was also not obtained. So far as report of CBI is concerned, it was not filed before the assessing officer and that could not have been the basis for re-assessment. The report of CBI could have been examined by the Assessing Officer and after due examination of the said report along with allegations and evidence, the matter could have been decided. With the aforesaid directions, the matter was remanded to the assessing officer. 3. Before the assessing officer, the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rwal, learned GA appearing for State supported the order. It was submitted by him that after the remand, due opportunity was extended to the assessee, but the assessee had failed to prove that infact there were genuine sales of the manufactured items, namely, coke briquettes. It was also submitted that once such an opportunity was allowed to the petitioner after remand, there was full compliance of remand order. Both the authorities have rightly decided the matter against the petitioner. He has referred certain order sheets of the Assessing Officer in respect of extending opportunity to the petitioner for filing reply and for production of material. 7. To appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, we have perused the remand order (Annexure P/5). In the remand order (Annexure P/ 5), certain specific directions were issued to the Assessing Officer. The Revisional Authority had issued following directions :- (i) That, for the assessment year 1997-98 no evidence was collected in respect of non-production by the unit; (ii) That, merely on the basis of report of task force which is non-speaking, it cannot be decided that the unit was closed before three years of the inspecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Assessing Officer ought to have recorded a fresh finding that there was tax evasion by the petitioner, on the basis of some material and documentary evidence tax evasion was found proved. But, in the Assessment Order and Revisional Order we do not find any such finding while it was necessary for the Assessing Officer and Revisional Authority to record such findings. 9. From the perusal of the impugned order, we find that after narration of the facts, the Revisional Authority because of non-production of any material before it by the petitioners reiterated the earlier order only, while as per directions issued by the Revisional Authority which are re-produced in para 7 hereinabove, the Assessing Authority was under an obligation to meet out all the aforesaid directions, but it appears that the Assessing Officer impressed with the fact that no evidence was produced before it by the assessee reiterated the earlier order, while it was under an obligation to decide the matter as directed by the Revisional Authority. When the important and vital issues are not considered by the Assessing Officer, the assessment order after remand cannot be sustained under the law. In aforesaid circ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
