2017 (9) TMI 1170

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....entral Sales Tax Act, 1956. In these writ petitions, the petitioner is aggrieved by the orders of assessment under the State Act for the years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16. 3. The petitioner is not aggrieved by the orders in their entirety, but only with regard to five issues, which have been decided against the petitioner. The five issues are as hereunder : "1. Wrong claim of input tax credit 2. Discrepancy in Form WW 3. Defective certificates issued by buyers of capital goods 4. Service income and 5. Miscellaneous income." 4. The learned Government Advocate referred to the instructions given by the respondent, which is in the form of a draft counter affidavit. On a perusal of the same, it is seen that the reasons set ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ow that there has been intra unit transfer. On coming to know of the said fact, the respondent termed the sale as a suppression on the part of the petitioner and confirmed the proposal. Such a finding is incorrect because the respondent should examine the correctness of the intra unit transfer and if it is really an intra unit transfer, then the question of sale does not arise. Therefore, the observation with regard to Form WW and the audited statement produced by the petitioner is incorrect. 8. With regard to sale of capital goods, the petitioner produced certificates from the buyer. According to the respondent, the certificate is defective, as the commodity code has not been properly mentioned. If there is a defect in the certificate, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....osal. It is not clear as to how the respondent has brought the drawback claim within the taxable category. This finding is devoid of reasons. 11. Though the petitioner had not made a specific request for affording an opportunity of personal hearing, considering the nature of assessment and the points involved, the respondent ought to have provided an opportunity of personal hearing, which would have solved several of the issues and in fact, it might have even avoided the present litigation. 12. Thus, on all the above grounds, the findings rendered by the respondent on the above five issues are incorrect and not tenable. In the light of the above, this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned assessment orders on the above indi....