TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 218
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ced in the writ petition. On 02/07/2010 roughly after a period of 3½ years, the first respondent issued show-cause notice under Section 39(1) of the Act, proposing to levy tax at the rate of 12.5%, for the assessment period of 2005-06, stating that the respondent was not involved in the activity of works contract and therefore, reassessment was to be made. On 10/09/2010, petitioner submitted reply to the show-cause notice and prayed to drop the notice. On 29/09/2010, the first respondent proceeded to pass the order whereby, the reassessment was made and the tax was assessed. The respondent herein challenged the said decision of the reassessment by the first respondent by filing writ petitions before this Court. Learned Single Judge found that as per the due payment made by the petitioner in W.P.Nos.13172-73/2010, paving bricks are included in Entry-2 of Schedule-III and the liability to pay tax would be at the rate of 4% only and not 12.5% and therefore, the order for re-assessment including the tax of 12.5% were set aside and consequently, allowed the writ petition. Under the circumstances, the appellant - State has preferred the present appeals. 3. We have heard Sri. K.M.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat ultimate decision taken by the learned Single Judge for cancellation of the reassessment order may not be interfered with. 6. As such, if we consider the reasons recorded by the learned Single Judge, it appears that the learned Single Judge was guided by his own decision dated 17/01/2011 in W.P. Nos. 13172-73/2010 and since he found that the duty leviable was 4% on the paving bricks/blocks and not 12.5%, the impugned order of reassessment was quashed. 7. In our view, if the only aspect considered by the learned Single Judge is to be considered by us in the present appeal, the order of the learned Single Judge cannot be maintained since writ appeal against the decision dated 17/01/2011 in W.P. Nos. 13172- 73/2010 are allowed and this Court has held that the Entry-2 of Schedule-III would not include paving bricks/blocks and consequently, the liability to pay tax will not be 4% but can be 12.5%. 8. However, in our view, the matter does not end there. There is substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for respondent that unless and until the certificate regarding composition of tax has been cancelled, whether reassessment could be made by the authority ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....scheme and Rule 136 would be relevant in the present case as the certificate has already been issued. Rule 137 reads as under:- "137. Issuing certificates.-The jurisdictional Local VAT officer or VAT sub- officer shall within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of Form VAT 1.- (1) if he considers that the Form VAT 1 submitted under Rule 136 is incorrect or incomplete or the dealer is ineligible for any other reason, after giving him the opportunity of showing cause in writing against rejection, issue a notice in Form VAT 9 informing the dealer that the Form VAT 1 is rejected and, where appropriate, demand any tax due; (2) if he is satisfied that the Form VAT 1 submitted under Rule 136 is correct and complete and within the time prescribed, issue a certificate in Form VAT 8 to the dealer; and (3) issue a further certified copy of the certificate where a certificate issued under clause (2) is lost or destroyed." The aforesaid shows that after submitting the application within the prescribed period, the jurisdictional local VAT Officer or the VAT Sub-Officer, if he is satisfied that the Form of VAT submitted under Rule 136 is correct and complete, then within the ti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that if any order which would result in a civil consequence, is to be passed by any authority, such power has to be exercised by observance of principles of natural justice vide State of Orissa v. Dr. Ms. Binapani DEI AIR 1967 SC 1269. According to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner AIR 1978 SC 851, civil consequences implies infraction of not merely property of personal rights but of civil liberties, material deprivation and non-pecuniary damages. In other words, everything that adversely affects a citizen in a civil life inflicts civil consequences. 12. It is also well established proposition of law that an order passed in utter violation of the principles of natural justice is null and void even in administrative matters vide A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India AIR 1970 SC 150. Any violation of the principles of natural justice results in arbitrary exercise of power and therefore would be an infraction of Art.14 of the Constitution. It has been held in Union of India v. Tulsi Ram Patel AIR 1985 SC 1416 that violation of rule of natural justice results in arbitrariness which is the same as discrimination and where discrimination is th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o continue to have the composition of tax in lieu of all taxable liability. It is only after the certificate is cancelled, the power may be available to the VAT Officer, to assess or reassess the liability to pay tax. In absence of cancellation, he will have power limited only to verify as to whether composition of tax as per the scheme of the Act has been paid or not. It need not be stated that in a case of composition of tax, the liability to pay tax as per respective entry for the respective schedule is not to be considered since it is in lieu of the same composition of tax is to be opted by the eligible dealer. 16. Under these circumstances, if the certificate is not cancelled and order of reassessment has been made, in our view, the same would run counter to the scheme of composition of tax as provided and conceived under Section 15 read with and the relevant Rules referred to above. Hence, we find that even if the reasons recorded by the learned Single Judge will not hold good, in view of our decision in Writ Appeal.No.5798/2011 decided on 23/03/2016, the order of reassessment which is already quashed may not be good fully but the quashing of the order of reassessment can be....