9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... produce the relevant documents within a period of seven days, the petitioner was duty-bound to avail an opportunity. Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner. - WRIT PETITION NO.16298/2017 AND W.P. NOs.16636-646/2017 (T-RES) - - - Dated:- 28-4-2017 - MR. RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN J. PETITIONER: (BY SRI.KUMAR M.N., ADVOCATE) RESPONDENTS: (BY SRI. T.K. VEDAMURTHY, AGA) ORDER The petitioner has made the following prayers before this Court: a) Issue a writ of certiorari, quashing re- assessment order dated 29/04/2014 (Annexure-F), passed by respondent No.2. b) Issue a writ/direction to the respondent No.2, to pass re-assessment order, by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner for the tax pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e record. However, by endorsement dated 30.08.2014, the respondent No.2 rejected the rectification application. On 05.05.2015, the respondent No.2 issued a notice to the petitioner demanding the alleged amount of value added tax, interest and penalty levied in the re- assessment order. 4. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the action of the respondent, again on 23.11.2015 he fi led an application for rectification. He filed the second application for rectification which enclosing the s ales register, purchases register and Form No.156. Subsequently, by an endorsement dated 01.01.2016 the respondent No.2 sought certain clarification from the petitioner. Immediately, on 27.01.2016, the petitioner submitted a letter clarifying quer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner. Similarly, even the third rectification application has been rejected without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thus, both the re-assessment orders, and the rejection of the rectification applications are in violation of the petitioner s right under the principles of natural justice. Therefore, they deserve to be interfered with by this Court. 8. On the other hand, Mr. T. K. Vedamurthy, the learned AGA, submits that firstly, the respondent No.2 had issued a notice under Section 39(1) r/w Section 72 (2), 36 and 37 of KVAT Act, to the petitioner, on 29.04.2014. The same was duly served as the notice contains the seal and signature of the petitioner. Secondly, according to the re-assessment order dated 29.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... documents within the seven days granted to him. Instead, he produced the same after a period of three weeks. Thus, the respondent was justified in rejecting the second rectification application by endorsement dated 29.03.2016. Sixthly, having received the third rectification application, by endorsement dated 05.11.2016, the petitioner was clearly informed that since his earlier two applications have been rejected by this office, his third rectification application need not be considered. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondents has supported the re-assessment order, and the rejection of the three rectification applications. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the records. 10. Undoubtedly, an oppor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... till now in the interest of natural justice and in order to allow the dealer to have a constructive participation in the assessment proceedings. Even after lapse of time granted as per notice dated 10.03.2014, the dealer has not filed any reply or objections. 12. Thus, it is obvious that the petitioner had been given ample opportunities by the assessing authority for filing the relevant documents and for stating his position. Moreover, even the notice is sued under Section 39(1) r/w Section 72(2), 36 and 37 of the KVAT Act, was duly served on the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is not justified in claiming that du ring the re-assessment proceedings, no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner. 13. The first e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it amply clear that in case the relevant documents are not submitted within the stipulated period of seven days, his claim of input tax and claim of exemptions will be disallowed . Despite the fact that the petitioner was put on notice, the petitioner failed to submit the relevant documents till 21.01.2016, i.e. fourteen days. Since the petitioner failed to submit the documents within the stipulate d period of seven days, the Deputy Commissioner was well justified in rejecting rectification application, by the endorsement dated 29.03.2016. Thus, again the petitioner is unjustified in claiming that an opportunity of hearing has not been given to him. Once an opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner to produce the relevant documen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
