9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roceedings in assessment - increase in pecuniary liability. HELD THAT:- Section 20 (1) of the M.P. VAT Act says that the assessment of every registered dealer shall be made separately every year. Sub-Section (4) of Section 20 provides that Commissioner shall serve on a registered dealer who is not eligible for assessment in the prescribed form, to appear in person or by an agent or to produce evidence or to produce accounts, registers, cash memoranda or other documents. Sub Section (b) provides that the Commissioner after hearing the registered dealer or his agent examined the evidence produced with requirement of section (2) and (3) of Clause (a), he may require shall assess or reassess to the tax. Therefore, proceedings under Section 20 (4) in respect of assess and re-assess is up to. All the authorities/ Tribunal has rightly held that under proviso (6) (a) of Section 14 of the M.P. VAT Act if a registered dealer (Selling dealer) has furnished a return of a period, the tax in respect of purchase made from the registered dealer, the selling dealer ordinarily deem to have been paid for the purpose subsection unless it is found otherwise. VAT Tax report has disclosed that certain en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t) Rs.55,00,538/- and Excess ITR certified by the Auditor Rs. 28,556/-. On the basis of the mismatch in form 75, Department issued a notice dated 30.10.2015 for assessment under section 20(4) of the M.P. VAT Act, 2002 in respect of the aforesaid assessment year. The appellant was called upon to appear with all accounts and audit books, sale and purchase receipts before the Assessment Officer. The appellant in Income Tax Returns disclosed the total sale of Rs.38,65,53,774/- in AY but as per audit books, the total sale was found of Rs.38,78,64,185/- hence there was the difference of Rs 13,10,411/- was noted by the Assessment Officer. The appellant showed the sale of material of Rs.10,44,32,742/- and claimed a total Input Tax Rebate of Rs.55,00,536/- out of which ITR of Rs.15,44,226/- could not be verified, hence, a rebate of only Rs. 39,56,310/- was granted. 4. Being aggrieved by the rejection of ITR of Rs.15,44,226/-, the appellant preferred an appeal under Section 46 of M.P. VAT Act, 2002 before the First Appellate Authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner Commercial Tax. Vide order dated 20.09.2016, the appeal has been dismissed and the order of the Assessment Authority has been affirme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that before passing the order under Sub-Section 5 of Section 20, a notice under Sub- Section 4 ought to have been issued in form 19 and if no response is given after the notice then the Assessing Officer gets power/ authority to proceed under Sub Section 5 of section 20 by issuing another notice as prescribed in Form 20. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance passed by the Division Bench of this Court in case of M.P. Rajya Power Loom Bunkar Sahkari Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax (W.P. No.10819/2010 decided on 02.12.2010. The appellant has proposed the following substantial question of law involved in this appeal, which is as under: [A] Whether the impugned order passed by the Appellant Board is perverse being without application of mind without granting any justification for unverified ITR amounting to Rs.15,44,226/- in spite of production of all the relevant bills produced and lists submitted by the appellant and ITR verified by the Auditor in VAT Audit Report ? [B] Whether non issuance of show cause notice by Assessing Officer and passing order without giving opportunity is against t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve considered all the grounds and material available on record. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal hence same is liable to be dismissed. Appreciations & Conclusion 9. The appellant is a registered assessee with Commercial Tax Department. The appellant submitted a VAT return for the year 2013-2014 by claiming an Input Tax Rebate of Rs.55,00,536/- The appellant submitted the VAT Audit Report online. In Form 75 certain entries in respect of the Input Tax Rebate were mismatched with the tax return submitted by the so-called sellers, therefore, the case of the appellant was taken up under Section 20 of the VAT Act, 2002 and notices were issued to the appellant. The Assessment Officer has found that the Input Tax Rebates claimed by the appellant in respect of certain purchases from the registered dealer but those purchases were not shown by the registered dealer in their Tax Return, therefore, accordingly, the Input Tax rebate of Rs.15,44,226/- has been rejected. The main contention of the appellant is that before passing proceedings under Section 20(5), no notice was issued under Section 20(4), therefore, entire proceedings are without authority and liable to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imself that any dealer, being liable to pay tax. In this case, the requirement of the proceeding under sub-section (4) has been done by way of issuing Form 75. After examining as per the VAT Tax report- 75, certain entries were found mismatched, therefore, notice under Section 20(5) was issued to the appellant before proceeding further. The principle of natural justice has been complied with by issuing notice under Section 20(5). 11. All the authorities/ Tribunal has rightly held that under proviso (6) (a) of Section 14 of the M.P. VAT Act if a registered dealer (Selling dealer) has furnished a return of a period, the tax in respect of purchase made from the registered dealer, the selling dealer ordinarily deem to have been paid for the purpose subsection unless it is found otherwise. VAT Tax report has disclosed that certain entries are not matching with the return of the selling dealer, therefore, the appellant was called upon under Section 20(5). Then under Section 15, the burden of proving that any sale or purchase effected by a dealer is not liable to tax under Section 9 or Section 10 as the case may be, or that he is eligible for an input tax rebate under Section 14 shall be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
