9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 966X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ernment Order dated 18.02.2016 had been issued with respect to such persons like the revisionist. Admittedly the revisionist applied in pursuance to the said Government Order on 07.04.2016 but no order was passed by the competent authority on the said application and the said application remained pending and in the meanwhile the impugned orders have been passed. The Government Order dated 18.02.2016 itself provides that even if application is filed beyond a period of 45 days the competent authority namely the Commissioner could still accept the said application on payment of interest. Admittedly no order has been passed by the competent authority / Commissioner on the application of the revisionist and at the same time the authorities ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overnment Order dated 18.02.2016. 3. The aforesaid statement of Shri Vikram Soni, learned Standing Counsel is recorded. 4. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the present petition is being disposed of finally. 5. The instant revision has been filed on various questions of law. However, learned counsel for the revisionist states that only the first question of law would be relevant for deciding the controversy involved in the instant revision, which for the sake of convenience, is reproduced below: (1) Whether if the matter is covered under the composition/compounding U/s 6 and 6A of VAT Act and the same is pending then assessment order U/s 28(2) of the VAT Act can be passed? 6. The instant revision ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he tax is now payable at Rs 1,84,000/-. The argument is that under Section 6A(3) of the Act, the revisionist is not required to furnish the returns and is to be assessed under any provisions of the Act 2008 and thus the show cause notice issued under the provisions of Section 28(2) of the Act 2008 was patently without jurisdiction as no such assessment could be carried out under the provisions of the Act. Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted a weeks' time to seek instructions as to when Section 6A of the Act prima facie prohibits the assessment under the previsions of the Act 2008 as to how show cause notice under Section 28(2) of the Act 2008 has been issued to the revisionist and the subsequent proceedings taken plac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... file a short counter affidavit duly indicating the said facts to which reply, if any, may be filed within next one week. As only a short question of law is involved as such, list this case after three weeks as fresh. Order Dated 02.12.2022 Heard. The facts of the case have already been set forth in detail in the orders of this Court dated 26.09.2022 and 13.10.2022. The specific case of the respondents State is that though the revisionist had applied for being given the benefit of the Government Order dated 18.02.2016 which was only applicable for a period of 45 days which lapsed on 06.04.2016 and the revisionist failed to apply within the said time yet admittedly he had applied on 07.04.2016. The application re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is to ascertained as to whether any such application could be filed in pursuance to the aforesaid circulars subsequent to SIB raids. Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted a week's time to seek specific instructions in this regard. As only a short question is involved as such list this case in the next week as fresh. 8. From the aforesaid facts as have been set forth in the orders of this Court it emerges that the point in dispute is that an SIB inquiry was carried out on 11.02.2016 by the respondents on the business premises of the revisionist. Subsequent thereto the revisionist got himself registered as a dealer in March 2016 and applied for being given benefit of the government order dated 18.02.2016 on 07.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount can be deposited by specific order of the Commissioner on payment of interest. The argument is that once the application was pending and the same not having been rejected it was the duty of the Commissioner or the competent officer to have specifically informed the revisionist that the amount could still be paid subject on payment of interest and there would not be any occasion for keeping the aforesaid pending and thereafter passing the order to the detriment of the revisionist. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record what clearly emerges is that an S.I.B. inquiry had been carried on 11.02.2016 on the premises of the revisionist. The revisionist got itself registered as a dealer in March 2016. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
