https://www.taxtmi.com/css/info/rss_sitemap/rss_feed.css?v=1746094055 https://www.taxtmi.com Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax Services Tax Management India. Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233869 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233869 The four different establishments including a proprietorship concern, controlled by the common persons are having separate registrations under the KGST Act and are engaged in similar nature of business dealing with rice, wheat, dal etc., sharing the same roof. While so, there was a search in the premises of the petitioners, by the authorities of Sales Tax Department, when some incriminating materials were traced out. Pursuant to which, notices were given to produce the 'books of accounts' and despite the several adjournments and various communications in between, the opportunity given was not properly utilized by the petitioners, leading to separate orders of assessment and penalty under Section 45A; which forms the subject matter of challenge in the concerned writ petitions. The first two writ petitions (W.P.(C).No12352/2005 and W.P.(C). No.10403/2012) have been filed by the very same Company, while the 3rd one (W.P.(C).No.10938/2012) is by a different Company consisting of the same person as the Managing Director and his wife being the other Director. The last writ petition (W.P. (C).No.12299/2012) is filed by the petitioner in respect of proprietorship concern, who happens to be the Managing Director of the two Companies as mentioned above, while the sole remaining Director is his wife who is also having a proprietorship concern by name 'South Asian Trade Links'. Held that - From the above, it is seen that, but for the vague averment and lame excuse, no effective steps were taken by the petitioner Company to have responded to the notice issued for finalization of proceedings, which was pending for quite long. As mentioned already, the petitioner is not a 'layman' or an individual, but a Company incorporated under the relevant provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, who could have ensured proper representation before the concerned authority through the Company Secretary, the Chartered Accountant, Lawyer if any, or such other authorised representative. Hence interference is not called for in this writ petition. In the result, Writ Petitions 12352/2005, 10403/2012 and 10938/2012, filed by the concerned Companies are found as devoid of any merit and they are dismissed accordingly. This however shall be without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the said petitioners to avail the statutory remedy in accordance with law. In W.P(C).No.12299/2012 filed by the petitioner/individual assessee in respect of the proprietorship concern related to that Ext.P5 statement of objections as well as the request therein seeking for 30 days' time to produce the books of accounts, has not been properly considered while proceeding with haste and finalizing the assessment. The first respondent is directed to pass fresh orders after giving an opportunity to produce the books of accounts and for hearing, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 'three months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.The petitioner is directed to appear before the first respondent with all the books of accounts and such other records or such other day to which the case is adjourned by the first respondent. It is open for the petitioner to appear either himself or through the duly authorized representative and no adjournment needs to be granted under any circumstances, but for compelling reasons to the satisfaction of the first respondent, however ensuring that the time schedule as mentioned hereinbefore is not varied. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 22 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530