2015 (11) TMI 1605 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of assessment upheld; registration not required for non-works contract activities.

Khanna Builders And Developers Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh

The court upheld the validity of the assessment order, ruling that registration as a Developer and Builder is not necessary unless engaged in works ... Jurisdiction of appellate authority - Held that: - the assessment order has been passed by the Assessing Officer after giving opportunity to the petitioner and putting him to notice in that behalf. The petitioner has also resorted to remedy of appeal. The question as to whether the procedure adopted by the Assessing Officer is permissible or otherwise can certainly be considered in the said appeal proceedings. The appellate Authority has jurisdiction to decide that contention as well. Hence, we decline to entertain this writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the petitioner may not be compelled to pay 10% of the penalty amount. Presumably, that is the purpose for filing of this writ petition. Petitioner is free to pursue even that prayer before the appellate Authority,which may consider the same in accordance with law and proceed with the appeal accordingly. Petition disposed off. Issues:1. Registration requirement for Developer and Builder.2. Assessment based on Works Contract activities.3. Validity of assessment order.4. Appeal remedy.5. Penalty payment dispute.Analysis:1. The judgment addresses the issue of registration requirements for a Developer and Builder. The petitioner claimed to be registered as Developer and Builder based on an enrollment certificate. However, the Assessing Officer found that the petitioner was engaged in Works Contract activities. The court noted that registration as a Developer and Builder is not necessary unless engaged in works contract activities. Since the petitioner was not registered for works contract, the assessment based on works contract activities was deemed valid.2. The judgment discusses the validity of the assessment order. The petitioner relied on various legal decisions to challenge the assessment. However, the court emphasized that the Assessing Officer had provided the petitioner with an opportunity to represent his defense and had passed the assessment order after due process. The court highlighted that the appellate authority had the jurisdiction to consider the procedural aspects raised by the petitioner during the appeal proceedings.3. The issue of appeal remedy was also addressed in the judgment. The court declined to entertain the writ petition as the petitioner had the option to raise the procedural concerns during the appeal process. The petitioner was advised to pursue the matter before the appellate authority, which could consider the petitioner's arguments in accordance with the law.4. The judgment further delves into the petitioner's request to not be compelled to pay 10% of the penalty amount. The court noted that the petitioner could raise this issue before the appellate authority, which had the discretion to decide on the penalty payment matter in line with legal provisions. The petitioner was granted the liberty to pursue this prayer before the appellate authority.5. In conclusion, the court disposed of the petitions, granting the petitioners the liberty to explore all legal avenues and leaving all questions open for further consideration. The judgment highlighted the importance of following the appropriate legal procedures and utilizing the available remedies in addressing the issues raised by the petitioners.