9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of learned counsel for the parties, these appeals are being disposed of at the admission stage. The dispute in the present appeals relate to the assessment period April '13 to March '14 under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The appellant is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of electrical/electronic products and execution of work contracts for transmission and distribution of electricity. For certain inter -state sales, for the period in question, lesser tax was charged and consequently deposited by the appellant, on the assurance that the purchaser would be furnishing Form -'C', which is to be obtained by the purchaser from its Assessing Officer. There is no dispute with regard to the turnov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 16 crores, totaling to over Rs. 89 crores, which was the same amount as mentioned in the notice. 4. Challenging the said order, the appellant filed Writ Petitions No. 8711 -8722/2015 on the ground that the appellant was not given adequate opportunity nor was given opportunity of personal hearing as prayed for and as such, according to the appellant, the order passed by the Assessing Authority was in violation of the principles of natural justice. The said writ petitions were dismissed by judgment and order dated 5.3.2015. Aggrieved by the same, these appeals have been filed. The questions to be decided in these appeals are as to: "(a) "Whether the opportunity afforded to the appellants by notice dated 31.1.2015 and subsequent endorseme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and as such, for the four tax periods (viz., April '13 to June 13, July '13 to September '13, October '13 to December '13 and January '14 to March '14), 16, 13, 10 and 7 months respectively had already been availed by the appellant and as such, no further time was required to be given. However, by the said endorsement, a week's further time was granted to the appellant. 7. A perusal of the endorsement would show that the difficulties expressed by the appellant in its reply dated 3.2.2015 had not been considered by the Assessing Authority. All that has been stated is that sufficient time has lapsed since the statutory period of 3 months had expired and yet the statutory forms had not been furnished by the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellate Authority was not justified in passing the order/endorsement dated 4.2.2015 and consequently, the order dated 20.2.2015 imposing the tax liability on the appellant. We are conscious of the fact that under Rule 12(7) of the Central Sales Tax (R & T) Rules, 1957, the declaration Form -'C' is to be furnished within three months after the end of the period to which the declaration relates. However, proviso to the said Rule provides that if the Prescribed Authority is satisfied that the person concerned was prevented by sufficient cause from furnishing such declaration within the said time, the Prescribed Authority may allow further time for furnishing such declaration. The same would mean that the discretion lies with the Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tended to the appellant or that there was violation of principles of natural justice. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons given herein above, we are of the firm opinion that fair and reasonable opportunity was not given to the appellant to furnish the balance statutory forms as time prayed for was denied without recording reasons or considering the reply of the appellant. The same was thus in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. As such, the finding recorded by the Writ Court that a week's opportunity was sufficient and also that the appellant had an alternate remedy of filing appeal, cannot be justified in law. The dismissal of the writ petitions was thus not warranted in the facts of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
