9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... delay and since the explanation offered by the petitioner herein has not been considered at all, the matter requires reconsideration. In view of the power conferred upon the assessing authority to condone the delay by virtue of the 'proviso' of the Rule 12(7), rejection of C-forms of the petitioner holding that they were belated was not correct and proper - Matter remanded back. - WP(C).No. 33379 of 2009 (N) - - - Dated:- 27-3-2012 - MR. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON J. PETITIONER: BY ADV. SRI. RAJU JOSEPH RESPONDENT: BY GOVT. PLEADER SHAIJ RAJ JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of Exts.P6 to P8 assessment orders, mainly declining to accept the C-forms produced by the petitioner, for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner would be present for personal hearing scheduled on 8-9-2009, as already let known. In spite of appearing for the personal hearing as scheduled, the explanation offered from the part of the petitioner was never considered properly and the assessing authority passed Exts.P6 to P8 assessment orders, fixing huge liability on the petitioner adopting a higher rate of 12.5%, declining to accept the C- forms produced, holding that they were belated. In respect of the assessment year 2005-06, it was also pointed out that there was a clubbing of different quarters together under the same declaration, which was not permissible in law. The petitioner is now before this Court challenging Exts.P6 to P8 assessment orders, mainly for the reason t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons within time. But the reason stated for not following such a course is that the petitioner has not offered any explanation for the delay in furnishing C-forms within the prescribed time. 4. Referring to the materials on record, Mr. Raju Joseph, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, on receipt of the pre assessment notices Ext.P2 to P4. Ext.P5, objection was preferred explaining the delay, seeking to have the same condoned. Even though the submission of the petitioner in this regard have been taken note of in Exts.P6 to P8 assessment orders, there is absolutely no discussion as to why the said explanation was not acceptable to the assessing authority or why the power vested with the authority to condone ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority is satisfied that the person concerned was prevented by sufficient cause from furnishing such declaration or certificate within the aforsaid time, authority may allow such declaration or certificate to be furnished within such further time as that authority may permit." 5. Ext.P1 circular issued by the Commissioner could be read and understood only as to alert the concerned authorities to adhere to the specific time frame, which in no way could be regarded as any encroachment into the field where the position is taken care of by the Act and Rules. In other words, how the matter has to be dealt with by the concerned authority, while giving effect to the Act or Rule alone has been explained in Ext.P1. The observation to the contrary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of transaction has occurred. Hence the contention raised by the dealer has no merit and hence rejected." This discussion does not show that the power vested with the authority as per the relevant 'proviso' to the Act/ Rule has been properly exercised by the concerned authority. Going by the nature of the order, it seems that the authority was not much aware of the said provision to condone the delay, but for the time requirement as three months. Though something more has been added/contributed in the last paragraph of the counter affidavit, stating that no satisfactory explanation was offered from the part of the petitioner/assessee, it is settled law, that the orders passed cannot be sought to be improved by adding or explaining something ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not correct and proper; thus setting aside the assessment order and remanding the matter to the assessing authority for being considered afresh, in the light of the observations made therein. 9. With regard to the assessment for the year 2005-06, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, the clubbing of different quarters in one declaration was never prohibited under the earlier statute, at least till 1-10-2005. The prohibition, if any, was introduced in the form of the 'second proviso' to Rule 12(1) of the CST (R and T) Rules 1957, which reads as follows. "Provided further that a single declaration may cover all transactions of sale which take place in one financial year between the same two dealers." The contention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
