AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 799
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,. JUDGMENT (PER MS SONAK J) :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The challenge in this Petition is to the impugned assessment order dated 24 May 2023 for FY 2015-2016. 4. The Petitioners 1 and 2 are established in accordance with Luxembourgian Laws. Petitioner No. 3 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act of 1956. 5. The Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 had inter alia granted the 3rd Petitioner the right to use their IPR in India. In that sense, therefore, the Petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are group companies. By the product license agreement effective 1 April 2013, the right....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to file a detailed response to the notice dated 3 May 2023. The Petitioners have pleaded that the 3rd Respondent granted the oral extension as prayed for by Mr Gattani. Mr Gattani was informed that the Petitioners would be notified of the following date for appearance. 9. The Petitioners have pleaded that on 1 July 2023, the third Petitioner was shocked to receive an assessment order dated 24 May 2023 from the third Respondent confirming the demand for VAT on royalty payments for FY 2015-2016. 10. The record shows that a notice as contemplated by Section 23 (4) of the MVAT Act was issued to the Petitioners and received by at least the third Petitioner on 5 May 2023. On 23 May 2023, Mr Vikas Gattani, Assistant General Manager-Tax of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Dhananjay Akhade, Additional Commissioner of State Tax, Pune, has filed a common affidavit in Writ Petition Nos. 11929, 11914 and 11915 of 2023. Paragraphs 4 to 8 of this affidavit read as follows:- "4. I have gone through the Assessment orders impugned in the captioned writ petitions. It is seen that there are several mistakes in the impugned Assessment Orders. It is submitted that, in the instant matter if on enquiry, the assessment orders passed by the assessing officer are found vexatious or under assessed and thus the assessing officer is found guilty, actions against the assessing officer can be initiated as per the provisions of Section 12 of the MVAT Act. 5. I have been informed that, on 05/12/2023 Joint Commissio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he prayer for a remand. By following this judgment and order, we have also disposed of Writ Petition No. 11915 of 2023 by quashing the impugned assessment order dated 20 March 2023 for FY 2014-2015 but have not made any order for remand. The reasons for not ordering a remand are discussed and set out in our judgment and order disposing of Writ Petition No. 11929 of 2023. 18. However, in so far as the present Petition, dealing with FY 2015-2016, is concerned, the facts relevant to considering whether or not to order a remand are different from those obtained in Writ Petition Nos. 11929 of 2023 and 11915 of 2023. Therefore, the request for remand would have to be examined against the backdrop of the facts in this case. 19. One of the ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....23 May 2023. There is no dispute about his appearance as a representative of the Petitioners. The only dispute is whether he made any submissions or only sought an extension of time. Assuming that he only sought an extension of time, we cannot say there is any manipulation or backdating of the impugned assessment order dated 24 May 2023. At the highest, we can say that the impugned assessment order was made in a tearing hurry and is therefore in breach of the principles of natural justice. 23. The impugned assessment order dated 24 May 2023 was communicated to the third Petitioner on 1 July 2023, i.e., within about 35 days from the date of its making. This delay is not comparable to the delay involved in communicating the impugned orders....