1999 (6) TMI 465 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Tribunal rules in favor of company and director in assessment order challenge

Rubberflex (P) Ltd. and Another Versus Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Dharamtala Circle and Others

Rubberflex (P) Ltd. and Another Versus Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Dharamtala Circle and Others - [2000] 119 STC 120 (WBTT) Issues:1. Challenging the legality of the assessment order, appellate, and revisional orders.2. Allegations of passing assessment order ex parte and delay in providing certified copy.3. Rejection of appeal on grounds of limitation and fraudulent information.4. Dispute over the date of assessment hearing and communication to the applicants.Analysis:1. The applicants, a private limited company and its managing director, challenged the legality of the assessment order dated December 10, 1986, and subsequent appellate and revisional orders under the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987. They alleged that the assessment order was passed ex parte on December 10, 1986, despite their representative being present and requesting an adjournment due to missing declaration forms. They further claimed delays in receiving a certified copy of the assessment order, leading to the rejection of their appeal on the grounds of limitation and fraudulent information by the appellate authority and the West Bengal Commercial Taxes Appellate and Revisional Board.2. The applicants argued that according to the old rule, the assessment order was not required to accompany the demand notice, necessitating them to apply for a certified copy to file an appeal upon receiving the service copy. They contended that the appeal was filed within the limitation period upon obtaining the service copy, despite delays in receiving necessary documents.3. The State Representative countered, stating that the date for the assessment hearing was October 4, 1986, not December 10, 1986, as claimed by the applicants. He highlighted discrepancies in the applicants' statements regarding the hearing date and the receipt of the demand notice, supporting the findings of fraudulent information by the appellate authority and the Board.4. The Tribunal refrained from delving into the actual assessment hearing date, emphasizing that the appeal rejection based on limitation was unjustified. It noted that the applicants were not served the assessment order with the demand notice, necessitating them to apply for a certified copy. Despite delays in receiving documents, the appeal was filed within the limitation period upon obtaining the service copy. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the appellate and revisional orders, remanding the matter for reconsideration on merit within a specified timeline.In conclusion, the Tribunal found in favor of the applicants, emphasizing procedural fairness and adherence to limitation periods in the appeal process, ultimately directing a reevaluation of the appeal on its merits.