TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 338
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 29(2) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short, 'the VAT Act') for 9.3.2015. On 10.3.2015, the order was reserved, however, the petitioner was granted opportunity to give written submissions till 16.3.2015. The petitioner submitted written reply on 16.3.2015. On 20.3.2015, notice was issued to show cause as to why penal action be not taken under Section 56 of the VAT Act, which was issued for 26.3.2015. The notice was issued only under the VAT Act. No proceedings had taken place on 26.3.2015. As the assessment order had not been passed, the petitioner submitted his objections on 1.4.2015 and on the same day, vide separate letter filed reply to the penalty notice as well. There is no order sheet prepared for penalty proceedings. The petitioner had earlier filed CWP No. 9038 of 2015 on 5.5.2015 challenging the show cause notice. The petitioner was served with copy of the assessment order dated 5.5.2015 through e-mail on 6.5.2015. The order was not signed. Along with the assessment order, demand notice dated 6.5.2015 was received, which was also unsigned. He referred to the information (Annexure P-18) given regarding attendance of the Designated Officer in office, w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otices that copy of assessment order has been sent to the petitioner on his registered e-mail ID and proof of email sent is appended on the file, however, from the print out available on the file of the proof of e-mail sent to the petitioner, it is evident that the same was taken on 12.5.2015. Hence, wrong facts have been mentioned. The conduct of the Designated Officer is in question. There was no urgency to pass order and send copy thereof to the petitioner on 6.5.2015 when he was not even in office, especially when there was stay in other case. No proceedings were pending for 6.5.2015. In fact, the whole object was to frustrate the writ petition already filed by the petitioner, which was scheduled for hearing on 7.5.2015. The intention was to raise demand so that the refund already due to the petitioner could be adjusted. There was an earlier order (Annexure P-10) passed by this court in CWP No. 2992 of 2015 directing the department to consider claim of the petitioner for refund within a period of two months. During the course of assessment proceedings, the petitioner had been regularly raising the issue regarding supply of the material in possession of the Designated Offi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessment year 2010-11, notice was issued on 14.5.2013, to which the petitioner filed reply dated 5.6.2013 praying for supply of the documents, on which reliance was sought to be placed. Further notice dated 19.3.2015 was issued by the Designated Officer, to which detailed reply dated 13.4.2015 was filed raising preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction, as the case was not transferred to him. On 20.4.2015, a request was made to decide the preliminary objection first before taking up the assessment proceedings. On 22.4.2015, detailed reply was filed, however, again with a request to summon the parties in case any further verification is required with reference to issuance of 'C' form. The petitioner filed CWP No. 8895 of 2015 on 4.5.2015, which was listed on 6.5.2015 and this Court directed that the Designated Officer shall decide the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner regarding jurisdiction and final decision shall not be taken. The order sheet, as recorded by the Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer on 5.5.2015 while reserving the order, notices that the cheque submitted by the petitioner as diet money to summon the witnesses was being returned. Counsel f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-mail dated 13.5.2015 was received stating that there was typing error in the letter dated 8.5.2015. A fresh scanned copy was sent. In fact, that correction was made subsequently, otherwise there was no question of sending un-corrected scanned copy through e-mail. On 13.5.2015, when corrected copy was sent, that too at 6.33 PM, the concerned officer was on leave, which shows how much undue interest officer was taking in assessment of the petitioner by giving good-bye to the procedure established by law. In fact, the properties of JPG file sent to the petitioner on 13.5.2015 by Excise & Taxation Officer shows his location at Patiala at the relevant time. The submission is that there being hurry in framing the assessment and the principles of natural justice having been violated, especially by not summoning the dealers, to whom the goods were sold or sent for consignment sales, prejudice has been caused to the petitioner, hence, order of assessment be set aside and the matter be remanded back. On the other hand, with reference to CWP No. 11769 of 2015, learned counsel for the State submitted that in the notice issued to the petitioner for assessment, issues regarding claim of inpu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion deserves to be dismissed. In support of the plea, reliance was placed upon Commissioner of Income-Tax and others v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, (2013) 357 ITR 357 (SC); Sumit Passi v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, (2016) 386 ITR 46 (P&H) and Commissioner of Income-Tax v. T. O. Abraham and Co., (2011) 333 ITR 182 (Ker.). With reference to assessment year 2010-11, learned State counsel did not dispute the fact that there was no further communication regarding transfer of jurisdiction of the assessment for the year in question after the letter dated 11.12.2014, which pertained to the year 2009-10. She submitted that prior to 5.5.2015, there was no request by the petitioner for summoning of record and it was only after the order was reserved. She accused the petitioner for placing on record forged documents regarding show cause notice for levy of penalty. She further submitted that there was no interim order passed on 5.5.2015, hence, no illegality in passing of assessment order. Any omission or procedural lapse can be condoned by this Court. The assessment order cannot be nullified on this ground. In response, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the request f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... certified copy thereof. Order communicated was neither scanned copy of a signed order nor digitally signed. Certified copy cannot possibly be sent through email, especially when the Rules do not permit the same. He was not even in office on the day on which copy of the order was served. The prayer made by the petitioner for summoning of the parties with whom the petitioner transacted and produced 'C' and 'F' forms, was not dealt with. The case set up by the petitioner was that all the transactions were duly recorded at the Information Collection Centres and the payments had been received through banking channels. This Court in CWP No. 2992 of 2015, vide order dated 20.2.2015, directed the authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of refund within a period of two months. Though assessment proceedings for the year 2009-10 started earlier, however, were pending with the authorities. Immediately after order for consideration of refund claim of the petitioner was received, the proceedings were fast tracked. On 10.3.2015, order was reserved. The strange fact is that after order was reserved, the petitioner was granted opportunity to file written su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons through e-mails, but not assessment order and demand notice. The definite stand of the petitioner, which was not controverted, was that signed copy of the assessment order was not available even on the assessment file, as the counsel for the petitioner had inspected the file on 25.5.2015 and 1.7.2015. Meaning thereby what was served upon the petitioner through e-mail was a copy of the typed assessment order, which was not signed even for more than a month by the officer. Once order itself was not signed, there was no question of preparation of certified copy to be supplied to the dealer concerned. All what is established is that there was undue haste by the Designated Officer in concluding the assessment proceedings and in that process he lost sight of the fact that principles of natural justice are also to be observed. No notice for levy of penalty was issued under the Central Act, still the penalty was levied for the assessment year 2009-10. Additional facts which are relevant for the assessment year 2010-11 are that the petitioner had even deposited the diet money for summoning the witnesses, still the prayer was not considered. The manner in which the order of transfer o....