Court dismisses challenge to tax circulars, emphasizes fair assessment process. Petitioner directed to follow statutory remedy.

The Court declined to entertain the petition challenging circulars issued by the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow, and provisional assessment orders under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008. It emphasized the need for adequate opportunity in assessments, citing the case law of Modi Xerox Limited vs. Additional Commissioner of Trade Tax. The Court directed the petitioner to utilize the statutory remedy under Section 32 of the Act within 30 days, ensuring a fair opportunity for defense. The writ petition was disposed of with instructions to follow proper statutory procedures.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to Circulars dated 12th November 2013 and 29th January 2014 issued by Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow; Provisional assessment orders under Section 25(1) of U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 for the months of April 2013 to September 2013.

Analysis:
The writ petition challenged Circulars dated 12th November 2013 and 29th January 2014 issued by the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow, instructing subordinate authorities to comply with the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, the petitioner did not press for quashing these circulars but requested to keep the challenge open for future proceedings. The petitioner also contested provisional assessment orders under Section 25(1) of U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 for April 2013 to September 2013. The petitioner's counsel argued that the notices for these assessments were served on 30th January 2014, and the petitioner sought 15 days to file objections, but the application was not entertained. The impugned assessment orders were passed on 31st January 2014 without proper opportunity given to the petitioner, leading to concerns of being ex parte.

The Court referred to the case of Modi Xerox Limited vs. Additional Commissioner of Trade Tax, emphasizing that adequate and proper opportunity must be provided even for provisional assessments. The Court noted that one day's notice for filing objections was insufficient, considering the circumstances. The Court highlighted Section 32 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008, which allows dealers to apply within 30 days to set aside ex parte orders if they were not able to appear due to sufficient cause. Despite the petitioner's admission of receiving notices, the Court observed that one day was inadequate for a reasonable opportunity. The Court directed the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy under Section 32 instead of approaching the High Court directly.

The Court declined to entertain the petition due to the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 32 of the Act, granting the petitioner liberty to invoke this right within 30 days. The Court assured that any application under Section 32 would be considered promptly, providing a fair opportunity for the petitioner to present all grounds and defenses without rejection based solely on delay. The writ petition was finally disposed of with these directions, emphasizing the importance of following statutory remedies for such matters.

---