2014 (8) TMI 190 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

High Court Orders Arrears Payment for Tax Discrepancies

M/s. Integrated Technologies Versus The Commercial Tax Officer (CT)

The High Court directed the petitioner to pay arrears of tax and allowed appeals to be filed promptly for multiple assessment years involving allegations ... Suppression of sales - Assessee originally assessed on self assessment basis - After some time surprise inspection conducted - difference in turnover between the Trading Account and the Sales turnover reported in the monthly returns filed - Held that:- petitioner herein is directed to pay a sum of ₹ 16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Only) towards arrears of tax, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On making such payment, the petitioner is at liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority within a period of one week from the date of making such payment, and if the papers are in order, the Appellate Authority shall entertain the appeal without insisting upon limitation point and dispose the same on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible - Decided conditionally in favour of assessee. Issues:1. Assessment year 2007-2008 - Alleged sales suppression and turnover difference.2. Assessment year 2008-2009 - Alleged taxable lease rental receipts and sales suppression.3. Assessment year 2009-2010 - Alleged taxable lease rental receipts and sales suppression.4. Assessment year 2010-2011 - Alleged taxable lease rental receipts and turnover avoidance.Analysis:1. For the assessment year 2007-2008, the petitioner was assessed based on self-assessment initially. However, a surprise inspection revealed alleged sales suppression and turnover differences. The respondent issued a proposal to revise the assessment, which the petitioner replied to, but the respondent confirmed the assessment order without proper consideration. The petitioner filed a writ petition to challenge this, leading to the High Court's directive for the petitioner to pay arrears of tax and allowing an appeal to be filed within a specified time frame.2. Moving to the assessment year 2008-2009, a similar scenario unfolded with alleged taxable lease rental receipts and sales suppression being identified during an inspection. The respondent proposed a revision, and despite the petitioner's detailed reply, the assessment order was confirmed without due diligence. This resulted in another writ petition being filed, leading to the High Court's order for the petitioner to pay arrears of tax and allowing an appeal to be filed promptly.3. In the assessment year 2009-2010, the petitioner faced similar allegations of taxable lease rental receipts and sales suppression. Despite the petitioner's detailed reply, the assessment order was confirmed without proper consideration. Subsequently, a writ petition was filed, and the High Court directed the petitioner to pay arrears of tax and allowed for an appeal to be filed within a specified timeline.4. Lastly, for the assessment year 2010-2011, the petitioner was accused of omitting taxable lease rental receipts, leading to allegations of turnover avoidance. Despite a common reply for all disputed years, the respondent overlooked the filed reply and confirmed the assessment order. This prompted the petitioner to file a writ petition, resulting in the High Court's order for the petitioner to pay arrears of tax and allowing an appeal to be filed expeditiously.In conclusion, the High Court's judgment addressed multiple assessment years where the petitioner faced allegations of sales suppression, taxable lease rental receipts, and turnover discrepancies. The court directed the petitioner to pay arrears of tax and allowed for appeals to be filed promptly in each case, emphasizing the importance of proper assessment procedures and due diligence in tax matters.