9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 474X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the replies i.e. Exts.P3 and P5 requested for opportunity of hearing before a decision is taken. The case of respondents is that Ext.P7 is not vitiated by the breach of principle of natural justice, for opportunity was afforded through Ext.P2, reply is received through Ext.P3 and thereafter order in Ext.P7 was made. In the considered view of this Court the said contention loses sight of an important circumstance to appreciate the effectiveness of procedural fairness afforded by the second respondent to the petitioner. The petitioner in Ext.P3 as well as in Ext.P5 has been demanding opportunity of hearing firstly to reconcile the disputed details or explain the reasons basing on which the second respondent is entertaining on the subcontr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 012-13. On 24.11.2018 the petitioner received notice in Ext.P2 dated 21.11.2018 issued under section 25(1) of the Act. The notice refers to the details furnished under the head of 'sub-contract expenses' and the alleged suppression of inter-State purchases said to have been made by the petitioner. 4. The second respondent, on the request made by petitioner, granted time till 18.12.2018 to file the reply. The petitioner through Ext.P3 reply dated 17.12.2018 denied the allegations in Ext.P1 notice and in categorical terms has made the following request: 2. We have accounted for all the purchases made by us during the year 2012-13 and we have declared the same in the returns. There has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioned above, it is humbly submitted that your good-self may be pleased to take on record the Purchase Reconciliation Statement and the relevant Form 20H and drop all proceedings in furtherance of the above referred to Notice u/s.25 dated 21.11.2018. 5. The Assessee also requests for an opportunity to be heard in person at your good-self's earliest convenience. 6. The second respondent issued the order dated 15.01.2019 in Ext.P7 determining the tax liability of the petitioner at ₹ 66,19,866/-. Hence the writ petition. 7. The petitioner challenges Ext.P7 as wholly illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and suffers from arbitrary exercise of power under Section 25 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... state purchase value declared by the dealer for ₹ 1,28,28,840.00 and the actual interstate purchase value obtained from the departmental website for ₹ 1,81,84,198.00. The dealer produced invoice copies of capital goods purchased for the differential amount and the same was accounted in their books of accounts also. Verified the same and found correct. Hence the contention of the dealer in this regard is allowed. 8. The case of petitioner is that the details of Form 20H are made available through Ext.P5. A finding on the veracity or the omission of furnishing the details is recorded without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner juxtaposes the details made available through Exts.P5 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion. 10. The rival submission of the counsel appearing on either sides are noted and the issue for consideration is whether Ext.P7 is illegal and vitiated by the breach of principles of natural justice. 11. Section 25 of the Act confers power on the second respondent to assess or reassess the alleged escaped turnover. In other words the second respondent is reopening the self-assessment already accepted for the subject year. The assessment is reopened by referring to two circumstances already referred to above. The petitioner through both the replies i.e. Exts.P3 and P5 requested for opportunity of hearing before a decision is taken. The case of respondents is that Ext.P7 is not vitiated by the breach of pri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an omission by the respondents at one or the other stages of enquiry the rights of the party are adversely affected resulting in fastening liability on a party appearing before respondents. The Court then is justified in presuming that the decision impugned is vitiated and illegal. The case on hand shows that Exts.P3 and P4 are the important stages of enquiry. Therefore it is in fitness of things that notice of further enquiry upon serving details as mentioned in Ext.P4 would have been provided to assessee/ petitioner to assert that sufficient opportunity was given and procedural fairness to the extent at best examined under Article 226 is satisfied. The onus is on respondents. The denial of such opportunity vitiates Ext.P7. This Court the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
