TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds VAT liability, penalty & interest, revives registration, directs reexamination, validates registration.</h1> <h3>Shri Gopal F. Lalchandani Versus The Sales Tax Officer & Others</h3> The Court partially allowed the Second Appeal, holding the petitioner liable for VAT on sales exceeding a threshold, imposing interest and penalty but ... Pendency of writ petition - Bombay Sales Tax Act - revival of petitioner's registration from 1st April, 1998 - principles of natural justice - Held that: - The legal questions and issues are kept open for decision in an appropriate case. In terms of the affidavit filed by the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax, the matter should be reexamined by the competent authority. If that competent authority is of the level of Deputy Commissioner or above, he shall proceed on the footing that the registration of the petitioner has been validated with effect from 1st April, 1998. He should also abide by the order dated 24th March, 2011. If the matter goes to the Assessing Officer as well, the Revenue has no objection and it will not raise the issue of its competence and jurisdiction. The matter being fairly old, the proceedings shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - writ petition disposed off - decided in favor of petitioner. Issues:Challenge to orders passed by respondent No.3, respondent No.2, and respondent No.1 under Article 226 of the Constitution. Validity of Second Appeal decision regarding VAT liability, interest, and penalty. Condonation of delay in registration application. Revival of registration from 1st April, 1998. Disposal of writ petition based on subsequent developments and validation of registration.Analysis:The petitioner challenged orders passed by different respondents under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Second Appeal decision allowed partially, holding the petitioner liable for VAT due to sales exceeding a certain threshold. The decision also imposed interest and penalty, with recovery proceedings kept in abeyance for a specific period. The petitioner pursued an application for condonation of delay in registration, leading to the revival of registration from 1st April, 1998.During the proceedings, the Court directed the concerned authority to decide the pending application for condonation of delay within three weeks. Subsequently, an order was passed validating the petitioner's registration from 1st April, 1998. The Court disposed of the writ petition based on these developments, keeping legal questions open for future cases. The competent authority was instructed to reexamine the matter in light of the validated registration, with a directive for expeditious disposal within three months.The Court acknowledged the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner and directed all proceedings to be conducted promptly. The writ petition was disposed of without costs, ensuring that the registration validation from 1st April, 1998, is recognized by the competent authority and the Assessing Officer, with no objection from the Revenue regarding competence and jurisdiction.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
