TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 1322
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s W.P.(C) No. 4597/2017 & W.P.(C) No. 4599/2017 2. These two petitions are filed by AIMIL Ltd. under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. The prayers in the W.P.(C) No. 4597/2017 are as under: "(a) set aside and quash the impugned order of Writ of demand dated 7.3.2017 as it is non-est.; (b) set aside and quash the impugned order dated 12.4.2017 for the 2006-07 issued by the VATO/ Asstt. Commissioner (W203) as being barred by limitation; (c) issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other direction, (d) issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other direction or pass any other order; (e) pass any other order or orders, direction or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....port benefits. 6. Aggrieved by the default assessment for the tax and interest under Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ('CST Act') four objections were filed by the Petitioner against the aforementioned demands under Section 74(1) of the DVAT Act. On 24th June, 2011, the Objection Hearing Authority ('OHA') disposed of all four objections. The operative portion of the said order reads as under: "I have gone through the documents submitted by the dealer in support of the objection against default assessment and have also heard the arguments of the counsel on this point whereupon I am of the considered view that since the dealer is in possession of above said statutory forms, it would be fair to consider the said forms for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r has challenged the said orders insofar as it raises the demand for AY 2006-07. 8. As far as the W.P.(C) No.4599/2017 is concerned, the facts are more or less similar. The petition challenges the four orders of default assessment of tax issued under Section 9(2) of the CST Act read with Section 32 of the DVAT Act dated 31st May, 2011 and 2nd June, 2011. Objections were filed before the OHA on 28th July, 2011 which was disposed of by it on 18th July, 2012. 9. The operative portion of the said order of the OHA in those objections of 2007-08 reads as under: "After going through the facts and circumstances of the case as also the judgment of the Hon. Supreme Court in the case of State of A.P. Vs. Hyderabad Asbestos Cement (1994) 94 ST....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., in its judgment in Shaila Enterprises v. Commissioner of Value Added Tax (2016) 94 VST 367 (Del) set aside the demands after observing that the failure of the VATO to comply with the time bound directions of the OHA would be fatal to the demands which are raised far beyond the time period envisaged for completion of the fresh assessment proceedings. It may be noted that the SLP filed by the Department against the aforementioned judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 4th January, 2017. 12. In the present case, the relevant file has been produced by the VATO before the Court. There is absolutely no noting on the file to indicate what happened to the orders passed by the OHA. There appears to be complete failure on the part of the....