TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 342
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rement of Section 42(2) of the OVAT Act. 2. Petitioner's case in a nutshell is that it is a proprietorship concern dealing with Foot Wear on wholesale basis. It is a registered dealer under the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (for short, 'OVAT Act'). The Sales Tax Officer, Vigilance, Cuttack Division, Cuttack conducted audit investigation at the business premises of the petitioner for the tax period from 01.04.2005 to 31.07.2006 on 12.07.2006. Audit visit report dated 21.07.2006 was submitted before the opposite party No.3-Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Cuttack-1 Range, Cuttack vide letter No.317 dated 22.07.2006 for completion of assessment under Section 42 of the OVAT Act. Basing upon such report, a proceeding under Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r consideration by this Court:- (i) Whether the order of assessment has been antedated and passed beyond the period of limitation? (ii) Whether notice dated 30.12.2006 issued in Form VAT- 306 for production of books of account and documents for assessment of the tax without complying with the mandate of sub-section (2) of Section 42 of the OVAT Act by not allowing the minimum period of 30 days for production of books of account and documents vitiates the assessment proceeding? (iii) What order? 6. Question No.(i) is whether the order of assessment has been antedated and passed beyond the period of limitation. To deal with this question, the following facts may be relevant. The Audit Visit Report was submitted on 22.07.2006 before the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad been a proper examination, it would have been a different matter. But, in the absence of any explanation whatsoever, we must presume that the order was not made on the date it purports to have been made. It would have been made after the expiry of the prescribed four years' period. The civil appeal is accordingly dismissed." 8. Following the aforementioned decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra), the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Sanka Agencies Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad, [2005] 142 STC 496 held as under: "We have seen the record. Record also shows that while the impugned order bears the date May 17, 1996, the order was sent to the appellant by dispatching it only on November 1, 1996. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction of suppression of purchases or sales, or both, erroneous claims of deductions including input tax credit, evasion of tax or contravention of any provision of this Act affecting the tax liability of the dealer, the assessing authority may, notwithstanding the fact that the dealer may have been assessed under Section 39 or Section 40, serve on such dealer a notice in the form and manner prescribed along with a copy of the audit Visit Report, requiring him to appear in person or through his authorized representative on a date and place specified therein and produce or cause to be produced such books of account and documents relying on which he intends to rebut the findings and estimated loss of revenue in respect of any tax period or per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of sub-section (2), it further reveals that discretion is vested on the Assessing Officer to allow time more than thirty days for production of books of account, but he has no jurisdiction to allow less than thirty days' time for production of books of account. 13. Law is well-settled that when the statute requires to do certain thing in certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods or mode of performance are impliedly and necessarily forbidden. The aforesaid settled legal proposition is based on a legal maxim "Expressio unius est exclusion alteris" meaning thereby that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner and fo....