9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 602X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er had received all the show cause notices. However, the petitioner chose not to respond to either the initial show cause notice issued in June, 2020 or the subsequent notices. The question of violation of principles of natural justice would arise, if a show cause notice is issued to a person and he responds to such show cause notice, after which additional grounds, which were not raised in the show cause notice are utilized, for passing an adverse order against the notice. In the present case, the petitioner has not responded to any of the show cause notices. In such circumstances, non-mentioning of Section 21 (5) of the Act, in the show cause notice, would not be fatal to the impugned order dated 13.10.2020. The audit assessment dated 13. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit assessment proceedings dated 13.10.2020 are beyond limitation. The petitioner contends that the period of limitation of four years, provided under the Act, is to be computed from the end of each tax period, i.e., for each month, and the period of four years up to April, 2016 expires by the end of May 2020, whereas the assessment was done on 13.10.2020. 4. The petitioner also assails both the orders, on the ground that the extended period of six years, provided under Section 21 (5) of the Act, could not have been invoked as none of the show cause notices issued by the 1st respondent, prior to the passing of the impugned, dated 13.10.2020, had raised the issue of extension of limitation in terms of Section 21 (5) of the Act. 5. The petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... none of the details relating to sale turnovers verification of ITC, verification of GIS reports, SIS reports verification could be verified as none of these records were submitted by the petitioner. Show cause notice also states that verification of way bills, utilized by the petitioner, had revealed the turnovers, which were set out in the show cause notice. On this basis, a demand of Rs. 37,74,588/- was raised, with liberty to the petitioner to demonstrate that the said proposal should not to be converted into an order of assessment. 8. The impugned order, dated 13.10.2020, records these facts and the fact that a show cause notice was issued and no reply had been received from the petitioner on the said show cause notice. On this basis, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5) of the Act would be applicable. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that invocation of Section 21 (5) of the Act should have been mentioned in the show cause notice, failing which such provision could not have been applied. He would submit that non-mention of provisions of Section 21 (5) of the Act, in the show cause notice, vitiates the order of assessment, dated 13.10.2020, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. 14. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner had received all the show cause notices. However, the petitioner chose not to respond to either the initial show cause notice issued in June, 2020 or the subsequent notices. 15. The question of violation of principles of natural justice wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
