TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1427X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the assessing authority to decide the same afresh after affording the petitioners an opportunity of hearing as well as producing necessary documents in support of their case - petition allowed by way of remand. - Special Civil Application No. 22740 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 21-12-2017 - MS. HARSHA DEVANI AND MR. A. S. SUPEHIA, JJ. For The Petitioner : Mr M R Bhatt, Senior Advocate with Arjun R Sheth, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr Chintan Dave, Assistant Government Pleader ORAL JUDGMENT ( PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) 1. Rule. Mr. Chintan Dave, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents No.1, 2 and 4. 2. Having regard to the issue involved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilarly, in relation to the year 2004-05, the petitioner had also paid the central sales tax dues payable by it. In relation to the year 2005-06, the matter was carried up till the Value Added Tax Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ) which, by an order dated 14.6.2011, quashed and set aside the assessment order dated 27.8.2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Division-5, Surat and remanded the matter to the assessing authority under the Central Sales Tax Act, mainly on the ground that no opportunity of hearing had been given to the first petitioner at the time of passing the assessment order since the factory and the business of the first petitioner were closed since May, 2006. It is the case of the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t State authorities. It is in this background that the petitioners have approached this court seeking the reliefs noted hereinabove. 5. Mr. M. R. Bhatt, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that in the impugned demand notices, demand has been raised in relation to the years 2003-04 and 2004-05 and 2005-06, despite the fact that insofar as the demands for the years 2003-04 and 2004-05, the tax due and payable had already been paid by the petitioner. It was submitted that insofar as the year 2005-06 is concerned, since the petitioners were not aware of the status of the proceedings before the assessing authority, the impugned orders came to be passed and the petitioners were not even aware of the passing of such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, later on the third respondent had been asked to recover the dues only in relation to the year 2005-06, but it appears that due to inadvertence, he has mentioned the original dues of 2003-04, 2004-05 and April, 2006 and May 2006 in the demand notice. It was submitted that insofar as the demand in respect of the year 2005-06 is concerned, the same is still outstanding and it is in view of the impugned orders, that such recovery is sought to be made. It was submitted that, however, the impugned orders being ex parte orders, the court may pass such orders as it deems fit in the interest of justice. 7. From the facts and contentions noted hereinabove, it is evident that out of the demands raised in the notice dated 24.9.2014 (Annexure-F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resh after affording the petitioners an opportunity of hearing as well as producing necessary documents in support of their case. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned orders dated 30.8.2013 and 30.9.2013 passed by the Assistant Commercial Tax Commissioner, Valsad (Annexure-E collectively to the petition) are hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the recovery notice dated 24.4.2013 and the demand notices dated 26.9.2017 and 15.11.2017 (Annexures - H and I respectively, to the petition) are hereby quashed and set aside and the matters are restored to the file of the respondent No.4, who shall decide the same in accordance with law, after affording the petitioners a reasonable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|