2016 (11) TMI 1133

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....xes for supply to auto industries. In these writ petitions, the petitioner has challenged the orders of assessment passed under the said Act for the years 2007-08 to 2014-15. 3. In all the assessments, identical issues arise for consideration namely (i) levy of tax on payment of excise duty and penalty thereon on the same and (ii) liability of cross verification of the annexures of the buyer and the seller in the intranet website of the Department. 4. In the pre-revision notices dated 29.9.2015, on the above said issues, a proposal was made and tax was demanded. With regard to cross verification of the annexures of the buyer as well as the seller as per Annexure I details, in the show cause notice, it was stated that as per the web r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... petitioner submitted another representation dated 5.11.2015 reiterating their request and also stated as to whether the respondent will take up the first notice dated 31.12.2014, for which, the petitioner filed their reply dated 25.2.2015 or the second notice dated 29.9.2015 for adjudication. Thereafter, the petitioner, by representation dated 9.2.2016, submitted para wise statement along with a copy of Annexure II in Form I, which they received from the supplier as per the details furnished in the notice dated 29.9.2015. 7. In the interregnum, since the petitioner was entitled to certain refund, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P. No.31164 of 2016 to direct the respondent to quantify the amount of refun....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....icer should have issued a notice to the dealer and called upon them to produce the documents. However, completing the assessments on the above lines is wholly unreasonable and arbitrary. Therefore, finding on the said issue calls for interference. 10. With regard to the other issue namely levy of tax on central excise duty, in the preceding paragraph, this Court took note of the stand taken by the petitioner in their reply dated 23.10.2015. However, the respondent, while completing the assessments, has not even dealt with the same. 11. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that as the fact of remittance of central excise duty is not in dispute, the petitioner will be liable to pay tax. 12. However,....