2015 (12) TMI 1426 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court quashes orders due to lack of consideration, remits for fresh review

M/s Ravi Timber Agency Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT)

The Court found that the respondent had not considered the petitioner's detailed objections before passing the impugned orders, leading to discrepancies. ... Levy of penalty under Section 27(3) - escapement of assessment due to wilful non disclosure of assessable turnover and in the absence of any omission of turnover - Held that:- For the pre-assessment notices dated 26.12.2014, the petitioner had filed replies dated 06.01.2015, which are supported by acknowledgements dated 08.01.2015. However, in the impugned orders, it has been specifically stated that no objections had been filed. Hence, it is crystal clear that the respondent without considering the detailed objections, passed the impugned orders - matter remanded back - Petition disposed of. Issues:Challenging orders of the respondent dated 27.02.2015 and seeking direction for considering objections and granting personal hearing.Analysis:The petitioner, a registered dealer under the TNVAT Act and CST Act, challenged the assessment orders for the years 2007-08, 2008-09, and 2011-12, claiming non-receipt of the said orders. The petitioner's place of business was inspected, leading to notices and replies, but the respondent passed orders without considering detailed objections. The petitioner argued against the levy of maximum penalty under Section 27(3) without willful non-disclosure of assessable turnover. Acknowledged replies were ignored by the respondent, leading to erroneous conclusions in the impugned orders.The Court found discrepancies between the petitioner's filed replies and the respondent's claim of non-receipt of objections. It concluded that the respondent had not considered the detailed objections before passing the impugned orders, thus rendering them liable to be quashed. The Court accepted the submission by the Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) to direct the respondent to reconsider the objections and provide a fresh opportunity for a personal hearing to the petitioner.By quashing the impugned orders dated 27.02.2015, the Court remitted the matters back to the respondent for fresh orders. The petitioner was instructed to submit any additional objections within two weeks, and the respondent was directed to consider all objections and pass appropriate orders within four weeks thereafter, ensuring a due opportunity for personal hearing. The writ petitions were disposed of with these directions, and no costs were awarded.