9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 530X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ord. The Assessing Officer also appears to have resorted to a formality of a hearing and inviting reply to his notice for purported rectification of mistake, inasmuch as, the position on record as pointed out by the petitioners, of the Coimbatore Authorities not agreeing for issuance of Form F for transfer of the goods in question from Mumbai to Coimbatore for processing, has not been taken into consideration in passing the impugned order. The Assessing Officer has thus acted without application of mind as also completely mis-applied the provisions of Section 24 in passing the impugned order - Petition allowed. - G.S. KULKARNI JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. For the Petitioners : Mr. Rahul Thakar i/b. Mr. Chandrakant B. Thakar. For the Respondent-State : Ms. Jyoti Chavan, AGP. P.C.:- 1. We have heard Mr. Thakar, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Chavan, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent - State. 2. The order impugned in this petition is an order dated 1 December 2021 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax under the provisions of Section 24(1) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act 2002 (for short MVAT Act ) read ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oceeded to make the Assessment Order dated 31 March 2021 considering the Audit Report, Balance sheet, month wise sales and purchase summary statement, details of goods return, declarations in Form F , details of job work charges etc., and the same were verified and had ordered that the balance tax payable was Nil. The operative part of the Assessment Order is required to be noted which reads thus:- Dealer had filed refund application No. 000037024551 dated 26/09/2018 for Rs. 36,84,834/-, against which part refund was sanctioned 33,06,970.80 on dated 23/10/2018. The dealer was taken for comprehensive assessment and issued Notice in Form 301 under MVAT Act and VI(E) under CST Act. In response to notice issued in Form 301, property served on the dealer, Shri. Ranawat, CA, attended the proceedings and briefed the case. He has submitted some documents like Audit Report 704, Balance Sheet, month wise sales and purchase summary statement, details of goods return, Declaration in Form F , Details of job work charges etc, same are verified and kept on record. The case was adjourned time to time and hearing is conducted. The dealer is a MANUFACTURER RESELLER OF GOLD SILVER OR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cordingly by considering the sale of goods which had taken place in the course of inter-state trade or commerce and tax would be levied as per the provisions of law. 7. The petitioners responded to the said notice issued under Section 24(1) of the MVAT Act by the Assistant Commissioner (State Tax) by their reply dated 27 October 2021, inter alia contending that during the course of assessment proceedings, the petitioners had submitted all the details and the documentary evidence. Insofar as non submission of form F for job charges was concerned, the petitioners stated that a request in that regard was made to the Coimbatore office for issuance of form F , however, the Assistant Commissioner (ST), R.S. Puram Circle, Coimbatore had issued a letter dated 25 October 2021 wherein it was recorded that asking F forms for job work transaction was not acceptable as well as there was no need of Form F for the transactions. A copy of the said letter was also submitted. The petitioners have also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ambika Steels Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Ors. (2009)14 SCC 309 wherein the Supreme Court had observed that certain States w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Rule. Mr. Takke waives service. 3. Ad-interim in terms of prayer clause (k) is granted. 4. Affidavit in reply to be filed and copy served within two weeks from today. Rejoinder, if any, to be filed and copy served within two weeks thereafter. 5. Petition be listed for final hearing on 29th September, 2022. 11. Despite almost year having passed, the respondents neither have bothered to ask for extension nor file any reply. Accordingly, we have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 12. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the impugned order on the face of it, is illegal inasmuch as the Assessing Officer has exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 24(1) of the MVAT Act, as the impugned order is not in the nature of rectification, but clearly a review of the assessment order. To make good such submission, Mr. Thakkar has drawn our attention to the observations as made in the rectification order wherein the Assessing Officer has himself recorded the submission of the petitioner that the goods sent for job work or received for doing job work, do not amount to sale would depend upon the contract entered into between the parties and would be t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
