2015 (12) TMI 238 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court orders fresh notice, deadlines for objections and evidence, sets aside original assessment, emphasizes procedural requirements

M/s AJK Safety Engineering Versus The Commercial Tax Officer-I, The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT)

The court directed the 1st respondent to issue a fresh notice, allowing the petitioner to file objections and evidence within two weeks. The 1st ... Claim of concessional rate of tax - Refund claim - pre deposit - Held that:- Petitioner herein has also paid the mandatory pre-deposit amount, however, stating that the appeal is barred by limitation, the same was rejected. The pre-deposit amount was not refunded to the petitioner - 1st respondent may be directed to issue fresh notice and on receipt of the same, the petitioner may be directed to file their objections and on receipt of the same, the 1st respondent may be directed to consider the objections and pass appropriate orders within a time frame. - Impugned order is set aside - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:Challenge to assessment order for CST 2013-14, lack of pre-assessment notice, dismissal of appeal, legality of ex parte assessment order, violation of principles of natural justice.Analysis:The petitioner, a registered dealer under VAT and CST Acts, challenged an assessment order for CST 2013-14 without receiving a pre-assessment notice. The petitioner traded safety equipment and filed monthly returns under the Central Act. The ex parte assessment order was passed without issuing a notice, and the partner's ill health delayed the appeal process. The petitioner contended that with submitted C Forms, the taxable turnover should be nil. The appeal was dismissed by the 2nd respondent citing delay. The petitioner argued that inability to obtain C Forms online hindered compliance. The petitioner claimed the ex parte assessment order was illegal and violated natural justice.The respondent contended that a pre-assessment notice was issued, instructing payment of balance tax. The respondent asserted that the petitioner did not utilize opportunities to submit forms or seek extensions, leading to the final assessment order. The 2nd respondent rejected the appeal due to delay. The petitioner disputed the receipt of the pre-assessment notice, while the respondent stated it was dispatched. A previous court decision highlighted the importance of affording a reasonable opportunity to be heard before passing assessment orders.The court directed the 1st respondent to issue a fresh notice, allowing the petitioner to file objections and evidence within two weeks. The 1st respondent was instructed to consider the submissions and pass orders within four weeks, ensuring due opportunity for the petitioner. The court set aside the original assessment order and remitted the matter back to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration. The mandatory pre-deposit amount paid by the petitioner was also addressed, emphasizing the need for adherence to procedural requirements and principles of natural justice.