9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 947X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty, i.e., respondent No. 3 for the period 2016-17 in so far as C. W. J. C. No. 7087 of 2019 is considered and 2017-18 in so far as C. W. J. C. No. 7935 of 2019 is concerned (hereinafter referred to as the "second writ petition") and the issue raised in each of the two writ petitions is the same that the two writ petitions have been heard analogous and with the consent of the parties are being disposed of by a common judgment. 3. The assessment orders for the periods 2016-17 and 2017-18 together with the demand notice for the respective years are each dated February 6, 2019 and are impugned at Annexure-2 series to the respective writ petitions. Mr. Vikash Kumar by way of preliminary objection submits that the orders are ex-parte because pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "the Act". According to learned State counsel, since there is no dispute on service of notice by e-mail and even if the petitioner has reasons to question the assessment order on the issue of inter-State sales, opportunity is available to him before the appellate authority when he can present C form by way of additional evidence. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we have perused the records. 7. As we have observed, there is no dispute that the petitioner was served through e-mail in compliance of the provision present in rule 50(1)(d) of "the Rules" framed under "the Act" which, inter alia, also provides other forms of service. It is again not in dispute that there is no physical service of notice as per the other mode ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. While the records of the proceeding do indicate a service of notice to the petitioner by e-mail, there is no physical service of notice on the petitioner as provided under the Rules. May be the petitioner has his reasons for not checking his e-mail which is a valid form of service but then, unless it is established that the petitioner was deliberately avoiding service, a simple case of a casual default may not be sufficient to shut the doors for such assessee and for proceeding ex-parte. Section 31 of 'the Act' has a purpose behind when it allows the assessee to present his case before any such order is passed and obviously an ex-parte order passed is an ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s it to the vendor for reducing his liability. It is the delay caused in obtaining such form from the recipient of the goods which acts prejudice to the vendor-assessee who is taxed at higher rate than as mandated in law, for inter State sales/stocks transfers. It is keeping this relevant aspect in mind that the courts have allowed the assessee to produce these forms as and when they are able to obtain it from the recipient so that he can approach the concerned statutory authority for seeking modification in the taxable turnover. 11. The case in hand is with an exception because in the present case, form C was available with the petitioner and it is but for the ex parte hearing, that the assessee could not produce the required form C in su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
