2015 (8) TMI 1307

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2011-Praveshkar under section 55A (ET) (Block period April 1, 2010 to October 25, 2010) (3) December 21, 2011: Prantiya/10/10 under section 52 (Penalty) (Period 2008-09) (4) December 21, 2011: Kendriya/11/10 under section 52 (Penalty) (Period 2008-09) (5) December 4, 2010: Prantiya/522/09 (State) Period April 1, 2008 to March 31, 2009 Appellate order dated March 15, 2012 (Case No. 270/11) (6) 11/06/2012: (2009-10 VAT) The orders passed by the Commercial Tax Authority dated 26.08.2014 exercising its jurisdiction in proceedings held before him under Section 24 B of the M.P. VAT Act in dismissing the application for settlement, this petition has been filed under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution. Two conte....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rguments indicating the proposals for settlement on Annexure P/4 in para Nos. 6, 7 and 8 of this proposal, which was in the form of submissions and specific grounds were made in it, which was seized and was never been called by the AO from the Katni office of the Department. We are of the view that single entry multiple time has been utilized due to which vague figure of turn over has been arrived. In para 8, specific example to show as to how a single transaction is shown on multiple times, which resulted in enhancement of transaction and the final assessment order suffers from immaterial due to these factors. Shri Sumit Nema, counsel for the petitioner submits that while deciding the question of permanent settlement of the tax in the w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he counsel for the petitioner is that even after the matter was proceeded further, the Settlement Commissioner should take decision after adverting each of the fact advance by the petitioner in proposal Annexure P/4 has already indicated from para-6 onwards and in para 7 and 8 specific errors have been found in the assessment order has been pointed out by the making a single entry in different places differently as as result, there is multiplicity of single entries which has inflated the turn over. Consequently, the tax has already been calculated on the basis of multiple entries of a single entry as demonstrated by the petitioner in para 7-8. Even, if the respondent were entitled to proceed exparte than they should have adverted all this p....