9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to be extended to the petitioner, more particularly in view of the order passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No. 21 of 2022 in Suo Motu Writ Petition No.3 of 2020, by which the period from 15th March, 2020 till 28th February, 2022 was to be treated as a relaxation period for granting benefit of limitation. The petitioner has already deposited sum of Rs. 06,04,393/- which is not disputed by the respondent to be payable under the Amnesty Scheme by 18th March, 2020. Thus, the petitioner has availed the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme, however the same is not given effect to by the respondent authorities on failure of the petitioner to communicate with the department because of the aforesaid two major factors viz. COVID-19 pandemic as well as death of the Consultant in the month of August, 2020. The impugned communication dated 29th March, 2022 and consequential action taken by the respondents are hereby quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to pass necessary order granting benefit of the Amnesty Scheme to the petitioner accepting amount of Rs. 06,04,393/- towards full and final settlement of the dispute for the year under consideration - P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rms/F-Forms relating to the job work done by it and in absence of such Forms, branch transfer made by the petitioner company was treated as inter-state sales, resulting into the aforesaid demand. 3.2 Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate authority. The petitioner paid Rs.18.60 lakh towards pre-deposit under Section 73 (4) of the VAT Act on 08th August, 2016. 3.3 During the course of appeal, the petitioner company filed some of the C-Forms/F-Forms and considering the same, the appellate authority revised the demand from 01,18,98,248/- to Rs. 20,13,777/-. 3.4 The petitioner company filed an appeal before the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal (for short the Tribunal ) on receipt of such order passed by the appellate authority since after the order passed by the appellate authority some more C-Forms/F-Forms were received by the petitioner company. 3.5 The Respondent State Government introduced Vera Samadhan Yojna, 2019 (for short Amnesty Scheme ) vide Government Resolution dated 11th September, 2019, which was superseded by the Resolution dated 06th December, 2019 later on. According to the Amnesty Scheme, the benefit was made available even in cases wher ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mand Outstanding 20,13,777 6,04,393 3.12 The petitioner thereafter deposited Rs. 61,000/- on 16th March, 2020 and remaining amount of Rs. 05,43,393/- on 18th March, 2020. 3.13 It is the case of the petitioner that due to COVID-19 pandemic from the month of March, 2020 onwards, the petitioner could not take further action and the Consultant of the petitioner who was attending the matter also expired on 19th August, 2020. The petitioner, thereafter in the month of March, 2022, received a communication from the Respondent Department for making full payment against the outstanding demand without giving effect of the order dated 28th February, 2020 and insisted on making payment of Rs. 20,13,777/- as per the order passed by the Appellate Authority on 27th September, 2016. 3.14 It appears that the respondent authority thereafter by the said communication informed the petitioner that as the petitioner did not make the full payment against the outstanding amount intimated vide intimation I.D., the application under the Amnesty Scheme was disposed of. 3.15 It appears that the petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal against such communication dated 29th March, 2022 before the respondent au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6.1 Learned Assistant Government Pleader referred to and relied upon the following averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent. 6. I say and submit that the petitioner have filed the petition challenging the VAT Amnesty Scheme rejection order for three financial years i.e. 2006-07, 2010-11, 2011-12. I would like to first submit some factual aspects of the matter related to financial year 2010-11 and 2011-12. 7. I say and submit that as far as rejection order qua financial year 2010-11 i.e (SCA 14160 of 2023) is concerned, the said demand was raised under the CST Act for non providing or rejection of C Forms and to which the liability of the petitioner was crystallized in the assessment order dated 30.03.2015 which is attached at (page 21) in memo of the petition against which the petitioner approached the first Appellate Authority and the first Appellate Authority vide order dated 15.10.2015 had reworked the working and pursuant to that the tax demand raised was Rs. 2,41,401/ which including demand and penalty was Rs. 4,56,367/- against which the petitioner preferred appeal under the Hon'ble Tribunal and after making payment of predeposit the Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er say and submit that even after passing of the fresh assessment orders by the Appellate Authority and till the rejection order of the VAT Amnesty Scheme the petitioner have not made a single communication regarding the same to the department nor had provided the copy of assessment orders to the jurisdictional officer which is even otherwise a mandatory requirement under the scheme at para no. 5.1 clause 7. And thus by this in my respectful submission the petitioner would not be entitled to any relief. 10. I say and submit that as far as rejection order qua financial year 2011-12 i.e. (SCA 14260 of 2023) is concerned, the said demand was raised under the CST Act for non providing or rejection of C Forms and to which the liability of the petitioner was crystallized in the assessment order dated 30.03.2016 which is attached at (page 17) in memo of the petition against which the petitioner approached the first Appellate Authority and the first Appellate Authority vide order dated 27.09.2016 had reworked the working and pursuant to that the tax demand raised was Rs. 20,37,771/- which including demand and penalty was Rs. 56,81,186/- against which the petitioner preferred appeal under t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner cannot claim the benefit of his delay in availing the benefit of VAT Amnesty Scheme. I further say and submit that even after passing of the fresh assessment orders by the Appellate Authority and till the rejection order of the VAT Amnesty Scheme the petitioner have not made a single communication regarding the same to the department nor had provided the copy of assessment orders to the jurisdictional officer which is even otherwise a mandatory requirement under the scheme at para no.5.1 clause 7. And thus by this in my respectful submission the petitioner would not be entitled to any relief. 13. I say and submit that qua financial year 2006-07 i.e. (SCA 14182 of 2023) is concerned it appears to be some technical mismatch on the portal and records of the department. I further say and submit as far as demand with respect to financial year 2006-07 is concerned, no dues of the petitioner are remaining and even the task is closed in the portal of the department and hence no liability of the petitioner qua financial year 2006-07 is outstanding as on date. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-R-1 is the screen shot of task report of the petitioner from the department for the financi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
