9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 799X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... requirement of personal hearing, we cannot infer any manipulation, backdating, or subterfuge. Besides, there was no unreasonable delay in communicating the impugned assessment order dated 24 May 2023. The issue of this order being made beyond the statutorily prescribed limitation period also does not arise in this matter. The facts and circumstances that persuaded not to accede to the prayer for remand in Writ Petition Nos. 11929 of 2023 and 11915 of 2023 are not the facts involved in the present Petition. Therefore, by balancing the interest of the Revenue and the Petitioners entitlement to fair treatment, it is satisfied that a remand would be in order after quashing the impugned assessment order. The impugned assessment order dated 24 M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PRs. 6. On 5 May 2023, the Petitioner No. 3 in Pune, India, received a notice dated 3 May 2023 in Form 301 for assessment for FY 2015-2016, addressed to the 1st and 2nd Petitioners seeking to levy VAT on the value of royalty payments made by the 3rd Petitioner against the license to use IPRs and technical know-how granted by 1st and 2nd Petitioner by treating the same as a sell of goods . 7. The Petitioners have pleaded that Form 301, dated 3 May 2023, was the first time that any of the Petitioners had received an intimation as to the assessment of the 1st and 2nd Petitioners under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 ( MVAT Act ) for any period. 8. Under the notice dated 3 May 2023 (served upon the 3rd Petitioner) on 5 May 2023, Petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in defence of the Petitioners during the alleged hearing on 23 May 2023. However, Mr Vikas Gattani requested an extension of time on 23 May 2023 and did not file any written submissions. 12. Section 23 (4) of the MVAT Act contemplates the issue of notice in Form 301 and a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any assessment order could be made. Even though a notice in Form 301 may have been served upon the Petitioners, they did not have a reasonable hearing opportunity of being heard. Thus, there was a failure of principles of natural justice and a breach of Section 23 (4) of the MVAT Act. 13. Besides, we find that the impugned assessment order dated 24 May 2023 refers to written submissions when, in fact, no such written submissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer Mr. Babasaheb K Shedge in response to letter issued dated 05/12/2023 is not accepted by Joint Commissioner, Large Taxpayer Unit, Pune. 7. Joint Commissioner, Large Taxpayer Unit, Pune has sent proposal to my office i.e. the office of Addl. Commissioner, Pune to initiate proceeding against the assessing officer Mr. Babasaheb K Shedge for breach of duty due to negligence. 8. In view of the above, it is humbly submitted that, as the mistakes that have occurred in the impugned assessment orders cannot be rectified or reviewed under the provisions of the MVAT Act, and considering the fact that the amount of tax quantum involved is huge, the Respondents most humbly pray that the petitioner's case may be remanded back for fresh assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 023 in orders made much before the said date, i.e. 14 March 2022 and 20 March 2023. According to us, this strongly suggested backdating the said two orders to make it appear that they were made and issued within the statutorily prescribed period of limitation of eight years when, in fact, they may have been issued beyond this period. 20. Besides, we found that the assessment orders dated 14 March 2022 for FY 2013-2014 and the order dated 20 March 2023 for FY 2014-2015, which were the subject matter of Writ Petition No. 11929 of 2023 and Writ Petition No. 11915 of 2023 were communicated to the third Petitioner only on 1 July 2023, i.e. after 15 months and 4 months, respectively. Again, there was no explanation for the delayed communication o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any manipulation, backdating, or subterfuge. Besides, there was no unreasonable delay in communicating the impugned assessment order dated 24 May 2023. The issue of this order being made beyond the statutorily prescribed limitation period also does not arise in this matter. 25. Accordingly, we are satisfied that the facts and circumstances that persuaded us not to accede to the prayer for remand in Writ Petition Nos. 11929 of 2023 and 11915 of 2023 are not the facts involved in the present Petition. Therefore, by balancing the interest of the Revenue and the Petitioners entitlement to fair treatment, we are satisfied that a remand would be in order after quashing the impugned assessment order. 26. Accordingly, the Rule in this Petition is d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
