9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, it cannot be said that the Authority acted arbitrary or unreasonably. Accordingly, we see no reasons. Even, if the respondent were entitled to proceed exparte than they should have adverted all this prima facie that a specific case of multiplicity considered the transaction as indicated. The Authority should evaluate and have verified the entries made therein as to whether the settlement should be permitted or that a part a single entry repeated multiple times. Than the amount be inflated as the error shown in para 7-8 the calculation made by the Authority shall considered the same. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter was granted to proceed on 26.08.2014 but while deciding the question of permanent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 26.08.2014 exercising its jurisdiction in proceedings held before him under Section 24 B of the M.P. VAT Act in dismissing the application for settlement, this petition has been filed under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution. Two contentions that have been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sumit Nema during the course of hearing. First contention is that the impugned order rejecting the application without granting adjournment to the petitioner and thereafter notice (Annexure P/5) was served upon the petitioner on 22.08.2014 and the matter was fixed for settlement on 26.08.2014. As the counsel for the petitioner was not available to appear for hearing on 26.08.2014. The application for adjournment (Annexure P/6) was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted in enhancement of transaction and the final assessment order suffers from immaterial due to these factors. Shri Sumit Nema, counsel for the petitioner submits that while deciding the question of permanent settlement of the tax in the written proposal had been concluded, this advert has not been considered and the matter should be remanded back to the Assessing Officer to evaluate the error being so committed. Shri Nema further indicates to Annexure P/8 and submits that the petitioner before the Settlement Commissioner had appeared but this factor had not been considered during the hearing. Shri Wadhwa submits that the order has been passed in accordance with law and in exercising discretion jurisdiction of the Court under Article ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equently, the tax has already been calculated on the basis of multiple entries of a single entry as demonstrated by the petitioner in para 7-8. Even, if the respondent were entitled to proceed exparte than they should have adverted all this prima facie that a specific case of multiplicity considered the transaction as indicated. The Authority should evaluate and have verified the entries made therein as to whether the settlement should be permitted or that a part a single entry repeated multiple times. Than the amount be inflated as the error shown in para 7-8 the calculation made by the Authority shall considered the same. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter was granted to proceed on 26.08.2014 but while dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
