9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 1265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied. No justification to interfere with the impugned order of reassessment, as it is the assessee who failed to effectively respond within reasonable time even after receipt of the show-cause notice, where the defects in the C forms were specified. Against assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by them in their reply, the Superintendent of Taxes by exercising powers under section 17(4) of the AGST Act read with section 9(2) of the CST Act, made fresh assessment by rejecting the six C forms mentioned in the show-cause notice and disallowed the claims by declaring that the assessee is liable to pay tax under section 8(1) of the AGST Act and also under the CST Act. A Bakijai proceeding for recovery of the assessed tax was thereafter initiated by the certificate officer, under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act. Mr. S. K. Agarwal, learned counsel, refers to the circular dated July 2, 2003 of the Commissioner of Taxes, Nagaland, to show that C forms issued prior to June 11, 2001 by the Nagaland based purchasing dealer to the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel contends that the petitioner should have approached the appellate authority if they Were aggrieved by the reassessment order and are not entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the court, without exhausting the statutory remedy provided to an aggrieved assessee. Mr. Dubey further submits that the assessee in spite of receiving the show-cause notice where the defects in the C forms were indicated, had failed to address the problem till the reassessment was made on July 3, 2003. The counsel points out that the petitioner failed to act with reasonable promptitude after he received the show-cause notice of January 1, 2003 and only because of the default of the petitioner and since the furnished six C forms were invalid, the transac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ] 20 STC 388 (Mad), when it was indicated by the assessing authority that the declaration in C forms were inconsistent with the Rules, the assessee obtained fresh C forms and tendered them to the assessing officer at a stage, prior to completion of the assessment. But the assessing authority took the view that he had no power to condone the delay in filing the declaration and accordingly the assessee was held liable to a higher levy of tax. In this case the Madras High Court held that the principles of natural justice would require that when something is discovered at the appellate stage which exposes the assessee to a higher tax, an opportunity must be given to the assessee to rectify the defects within the time granted for the purpose. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice were breached in the case. But the assessee in the instant case was issued a show-cause notice where the specific defects in the six C forms were mentioned and they were given an opportunity to cure the defects. But they failed to avail of this opportunity. Therefore the Revenue cannot be faulted for the lapses of the assessee and the merit of the reassessment cannot be examined now by looking into materials, which were not made available to the assessing officer. Accordingly I find no justification to interfere with the impugned order of reassessment, as it is the assessee who failed to effectively respond within reasonable time even after receipt of the show-cause notice, where the defects in the C forms were specified. It must al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
