Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2011 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (12) TMI 492 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxPenalty under section 69 of the Madhya Pradesh Vanijya Kar Adhiniyam, 1994 - consequential recovery notice - Held that - While passing the impugned orders, the Assistant Commissioner has not assigned any reason for imposing the penalty except observing that the explanation of the dealer is not in accordance with law. The impugned orders indicate that the reply to the show-cause notice which was filed by the petitioner and the explanation submitted by him has not been considered by the Assistant Commissioner in proper perspective. The impugned orders suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, non-assigning of reasons and appears to have been passed in a mechanical manner. Appeal allowed. Penalty order set aside.
Issues:
Challenge to penalty imposed under section 69 of the Madhya Pradesh Vanijya Kar Adhiniyam, 1994 and consequential recovery notice. Analysis: In the present case, the petitioner challenged the penalty imposed by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Indore Division 2, under section 69 of the Madhya Pradesh Vanijya Kar Adhiniyam, 1994, along with the consequential recovery notice. The petitioner, a registered dealer, contended that they were not liable to pay entry tax for refining oil purchased from other dealers or imported from outside Madhya Pradesh, as they believed the refining process was excluded from the definition of "manufacture." However, the assessing authority did not accept this argument and initiated penalty proceedings against the petitioner. The Assistant Commissioner passed orders imposing the penalty without adequately considering the petitioner's response to the show-cause notice. The court noted that the impugned orders lacked reasoning, failed to consider the petitioner's explanation properly, and seemed to be passed mechanically, indicating a lack of application of mind. The court observed that the Assistant Commissioner did not fulfill the requirement of examining whether the conditions of section 69 were met before imposing the penalty. The orders were found to be similarly worded and suffered from the same legal flaws. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned orders and directed the Assistant Commissioner to reevaluate the matter after providing the petitioner with a proper opportunity to be heard. The petitioner was granted the freedom to raise all permissible legal grounds, and the Assistant Commissioner was instructed to issue a fresh, reasoned order in compliance with the law. Therefore, the court disposed of the writ petitions by quashing the impugned orders and ordering a fresh consideration of the matter by the Assistant Commissioner. The court emphasized the importance of providing a fair hearing and issuing reasoned decisions in accordance with the legal requirements.
|