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>Writ petition dismissed; assessment proceedings must be completed within three months.</h1> <h3>M/s. Shiom Enterprises, M/s. P.G. Sales Corporation, Mr. Dinesh s/o Govindsingh Banaffar, M/s. Sweta Traders and Fabricators, Mr. Umesh s/o Govindsingh, M/s. Pooja Sales, M/s. Lalit Steel Traders, M/s. Deep Sales Corporation, M/s. Varun Screens Versus The State of Maharashtra, The Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (Investigation)</h3> M/s. Shiom Enterprises, M/s. P.G. Sales Corporation, Mr. Dinesh s/o Govindsingh Banaffar, M/s. Sweta Traders and Fabricators, Mr. Umesh s/o Govindsingh, ... Issues Involved:1. Omission by respondent No. 2 to address the petitioners' requests before proceeding with assessment.2. Validity of the assessment notice dated 06.06.2012 under Section 23 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002.3. Determination of whether the petitioners qualify as 'dealers' under the 2002 Act.4. Petitioners' demand for summoning bank officials and cross-examining vendees.5. The burden of proof regarding the petitioners' status as dealers.6. Delay in the proceedings and its impact on public revenue.Detailed Analysis:1. Omission by respondent No. 2 to address the petitioners' requests before proceeding with assessment:The petitioners challenged the omission by respondent No. 2 to consider their applications dated 24.08.2012, 21.02.2013, 18.09.2013, 18.03.2014, and 07.02.2015 before moving forward with the assessment proceedings. They argued that these applications, which included requests to summon bank officials and cross-examine vendees, should be decided first. The court noted that despite the petitioners' repeated requests and orders from the court, no decision was taken by the respondents, leading to unnecessary delays.2. Validity of the assessment notice dated 06.06.2012 under Section 23 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002:The notice dated 06.06.2012 was issued under Section 23(4) of the 2002 Act, calling upon the petitioners to show cause why they should not be assessed. The petitioners contended that they could not be assessed as they were not dealers and that the burden of proof was on the department. The court observed that the respondents had the authority to proceed with the assessment based on the material available, and the notice was deemed valid.3. Determination of whether the petitioners qualify as 'dealers' under the 2002 Act:The petitioners argued that they were not dealers as defined under Section 2(8) of the 2002 Act, claiming that there was no actual movement of goods and that the bank accounts were opened at the instance of mediators to earn a commission. The court noted that the burden was on the petitioners to demonstrate that they were not dealers. The material on record, including the petitioners' own admissions and the Income Tax assessment order, indicated that the petitioners were involved in activities that could be construed as business, thus qualifying them as dealers.4. Petitioners' demand for summoning bank officials and cross-examining vendees:The petitioners requested the summoning of bank officials and the cross-examination of vendees to prove their case. The court found that the petitioners had not disclosed the names of the mediators and had failed to provide sufficient details despite multiple opportunities. The court held that the respondents were justified in proceeding with the assessment without granting these requests.5. The burden of proof regarding the petitioners' status as dealers:The court emphasized that the burden of proof was on the petitioners to show that they were not dealers. The petitioners' claims that the sales invoices were not genuine and that the bank accounts were used only for commission-based transactions were not substantiated with adequate evidence. The court concluded that the petitioners had not met their burden of proof.6. Delay in the proceedings and its impact on public revenue:The court noted that the proceedings had been unnecessarily delayed for over three years due to the respondents' inaction. This delay was prejudicial to public revenue and favored the petitioners. The court directed the respondents to expedite the proceedings and complete them within three months, holding the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax responsible for compliance.Conclusion:The court dismissed the writ petition, finding the petitioners' grievances to be misconceived and erroneous. The respondents were directed to complete the assessment proceedings within three months, and no order as to costs was made. The court underscored the importance of timely action in matters affecting public revenue.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
