TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 959
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in to Assessment Years (A.Ys) 2007-2008 to 2013-2014. 2. It is pertinent to note that some of the issues dealt with in the impugned orders are common, while others do not find mention in the impugned orders. 2.1. It is, however, common ground between the parties before me, that, the following issues were part of the adjudication process before respondent No.2; these being: "i) Tax on difference in sales turnover in books of accounts and monthly VAT returns ii) Tax computed on sale of goods at a price lesser than the cost of the goods iii) Tax on miscellaneous income iv) Tax on handling charges paid on transportation of goods v) Disallowance of exemption of printed material on sale of brouch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Total amount (in INR) Rema rks 3 Tax on miscellneou s income 546 4,974 - - - 5,520 Issue droppe d but still includ ed in the final deman d 4 Tax on handling charges paid on transportati on of goods 83,189 151,02 3 263, 146 - - - - 497,358 5 Disallowanc e of exemption of printed material on sale of brouchers 1,415,76 0 1,680, 766 2,38 5,21 0 2,177, 671 1,587,80 9 250,545 140,016 9,637,77 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 13,14,38 6 21,51, 330 13,2 6,09 1 60,87, 331 60,88,91 3 83,32,98 5 61,25,98 1 3,14,27, 017 4. At the outset, counsel for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner would have no difficulty in preferring statutory appeals qua issue Nos.(i) and (iii), it would want the Court to interfere with the impugned order with regard to issue No.(ii). 5. The record shows that notice in this Writ Petition was issued on 08.10.2015, when a conditional order of stay was granted qua the impugned orders. The condition imposed was that the petitioner was directed to deposit 25% of the balance tax as indicated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th an intent to evade tax. iv) That the notice was vague and lacked material particulars v) That VAT/sales tax was payable only on the actual consideration payable by the buyer to the seller and vi) That the demand raised was barred by limitation. 7. It is pertinent to note that, in the interregnum, the petitioner was given a personal hearing and, therefore, as indicated above, an additional submission was filed by the petitioner on 30.06.2015. 7.1. It is, thus, the stand of the petitioner that a bare perusal of the impugned orders pertaining to the relevant assessment years, to which, I have made a reference above, would show that, in so far as issue No.(ii) was concerned, none of the submissions, as set out in the sur-rejoi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....barred by limitation. 12. Therefore, having regard to the overall facts and circumstances, I am of the view that, there has been a breach of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, the conclusions are not based on the objections raised and the materials placed before respondent No.2. 13. Accordingly, I am inclined to accept the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, which is to set aside the impugned orders, pertaining to A.Ys.2007-08 to 2008-09 and 2010-11 to 2013-14 qua issue No.(ii), only. 13.1. It is ordered accordingly. 14. As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he would have liberty to prefer an appeal with regard to the remaining issues in accordance with the extant provisions of law. 15. Respondent....