9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 823X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner and the formation of the belief that tax has not paid by the assessee. Reasons have to be bona fide and honest. Reasons are required to have a rational nexus with formation of belief. Belief should be based on material which relevant and cogent. As a matter of fact, the law casts an obligation on the revenue to inform the assessee in no uncertain words as to the charge against him i.e., as to whether it is a case for concealment, or omission or failure to disclose material particulars or a sum of one or more infractions. There are too many infractions committed by the respondent/revenue in the instant matter; in particular, there has been no, independent, application of mind as to whether this was a case, in which, the extended period of limitation could have been invoked - Petition disposed off. - W.P.(C) 12358/2018 & CM No.23631/2022 - - - Dated:- 26-7-2022 - HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER AND HON'BLE MS JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajesh Jain with Mr. Virag Tiwari and Mr. Ramashish, Advocates. Respondent Through: Mr. Shadan Farasat, ASC with Ms. Hafsa, Advocate for GNCTD. [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the submission of its audited balance sheet, bank record, GR/RRs and the record of inter-state sales and transfer of goods, along with statutory declaration forms. 3.9. It is in this backdrop that the respondent/revenue, in the first instance, proceeded to pass assessment orders on 18.01.2018 [hereafter referred to as first batch of assessment orders ] 4. The petitioner, being aggrieved, approached this Court by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and challenged one of the orders from amongst the first batch of assessment orders. 4.1. The writ petition was numbered as W.P.(C) No. 9203/2018, and the same was allowed via order dated 31.08.2018. Consequently, the Court set aside the order dated 18.01.2018; the others were possibly withdrawn by the respondent/ revenue. For the sake of convenience, the order passed by the Division Bench on 31.08.2018 is set forth hereafter: The petitioner challenges an order dated 18.01.2018 issued under Sections 32/33 of the Delhi VAT Act. Sh. Satyakam, learned counsel for the respondents, appearing on advance notice submits at the outset that the impugned order was issued by mistake and that he has instruct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h in sub-section (1) of Section 34 of the DVAT Act. 6.2. In support of this plea, Mr Farasat has sought to place reliance on the internal note dated 03.08.2017 generated by the respondent/revenue, to which, as noticed above, the Commissioner s approval is appended. 6.3. Pertinently, on 09.10.2017, Commissioner simply approved the view penned down by his subordinates. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The facts set forth hereinabove are not in dispute. 7.1. The respondent/revenue had passed the first batch of assessment orders on 18.01.2018, which were assailed by the petitioner by filing a writ petition in this Court. 7.2. The writ petition [i.e., W.P.(C) No. 9203/2018] was allowed, inasmuch as the assessment order dated 18.01.2018 was set aside. Leave was granted to the respondent/revenue to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with[the] law. 7.3. The respondent/revenue, it appears, took this as a green signal from the Court to pass the impugned assessment orders. 8. As noted above, the impugned assessment orders are founded on the intelligence input received by the respondent/revenue as far back as on 19.08.2015. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sons Pvt Ltd., Calcutta vs. ITO and Ors., (1981) 3 SCC 143 and Synfonia Tradelinks Pvt vs. ITO, (2021) 435 ITR 642.] 10.1. This problem, insofar as the respondent/revenue is concerned, was further enmeshed in legal quagmire when the notice under Section 59(2) of the DVAT Act was issued to the petitioner on 11.10.2017. 10.2. The notice made no reference to the fact that the concerned officer was seeking information detailed out there because he had reason to believe that tax had not been paid by the petitioner on account of the concealment, omission or failure to disclose material particulars. 10.3. As a matter of fact, the law casts an obligation on the revenue to inform the assessee in no uncertain words as to the charge against him i.e., as to whether it is a case for concealment, or omission or failure to disclose material particulars or a sum of one or more infractions. 10.4. The notice dated 11.10.2017, neither has the Commissioner s approval, nor does it allude to any of the aforementioned aspects. 11. Mr Jain, in support of his submission that the impugned assessment orders could not be sustained in law has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
