TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Construction company instructed to appeal Form 250 concerns, assessment orders set aside, prompt review required</h1> The court directed the construction company to appeal before the appellate Deputy Commissioner to address authenticity concerns regarding Form 250. The ... Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative efficacious remedy of appeal - petitioner contends that it filed Xerox copy of Form VAT 250 along with other records but the 1st respondent without considering the same, passed the impugned Assessment order - HELD THAT:- Whether the copy of Form VAT 250 produced by the petitioner is a genuine one or a fake one is a question of fact to be decided taking into consideration other relevant facts. Since the exercise is not possible in writ petition and as the provision for appeal is available to the petitioner and also considering that valuable contention of the petitioner is at stake, we deem it appropriate to direct the petitioner to file appeal before the appellate Deputy Commissioner within specified time and direct the said authority to admit the appeal and pass appropriate order. The impugned assessment order and penalty order are set aside with a direction that the petitioner shall within four (4) weeks from the date of this order file appeal before the concerned appellate authority, in which case, the said appellate authority shall admit the appeal and afford an opportunity to the petitioner to establish the genuinity of Form VAT 250 produced by it - petition allowed. Issues:Challenging assessment order and penalty order for tax evasion in the construction business.Detailed Analysis:1. Assessment Order Challenge:- The petitioner, a construction company, challenged the assessment order for the year 2013-14, alleging that the assessing authority deemed a submitted Form 250 as fake, leading to tax evasion accusations.- The petitioner argued that similar forms were accepted for previous years without issue, questioning the sudden rejection for the current year.- The respondent countered, claiming the Form 250 submitted was indeed fake, with discrepancies in the seal and date, demanding proof of the original form.2. Penalty Order Challenge:- The petitioner also contested the penalty order linked to the assessment, citing administrative difficulties in responding to notices promptly due to management issues and COVID-19 restrictions.- The respondent argued that the petitioner failed to produce necessary documents and that the authenticity of the submitted Form 250 was questionable.3. Legal Arguments:- The petitioner's counsel emphasized the inconsistency in the assessing authority's treatment of Form 250 across different assessment years, highlighting the illogical rejection for the specific year in question.- The government pleader stressed the need for the petitioner to follow the appeal process instead of resorting to a writ petition directly.4. Court Decision:- The court directed the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate Deputy Commissioner within a specified time frame to address the authenticity concerns regarding Form 250.- The court set aside the assessment and penalty orders, allowing the petitioner an opportunity to establish the genuineness of the disputed form through the appeal process.- The appellate authority was instructed to review the appeal promptly and make a decision within three months of filing, ensuring adherence to relevant laws and regulations.This detailed analysis encapsulates the key legal arguments, challenges, and the court's decision regarding the assessment and penalty orders in the construction company's tax evasion case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
