Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2017 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 259 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRefund claim - rejection of the same without giving any opportunity of hearing or specific Proposition notice before passing of the said reassessment order - Held that - When the very first notice was given to the petitioner vide Annexure-A dated 14.09.2016, not only called upon the petitioner to produce the Books of Accounts, but also to raise the objections about two specific proposals of the Respondent-Assessing Authority to deny Input Tax Credit of ₹ 1,52,462/- and also to estimate URD purchases at the rate of 25% of the total turnover, to which, apparently no specific objection was ever raised by the petitioner-assessee, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner-assessee cannot raise any grievance about no specific Proposition notice was given to him - petitioner-assessee therefore cannot be heard to complain the breach of principles of natural justice by the Respondent-Assessing Authority and not giving him an opportunity to file objections - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
Issues:
Reassessment order challenged under Article 226 - Lack of Proposition notice - Rejection of refund claim without hearing - Alleged breach of natural justice - Appealability of reassessment order. Analysis: The petitioner, M/s. Vishal Concrete Works, directly approached the High Court under Article 226 challenging the reassessment order issued by the Assessing Authority of the Commercial Tax Department. The main contention was the absence of a Proposition notice after submitting Books of Accounts and records, leading to the rejection of a refund claim without a hearing. The petitioner argued that no specific opportunity for objection was provided before the reassessment order was passed. The Respondent-Department contended that the initial notice clearly called for explanations regarding discrepancies and potential disallowance of Input Tax Credit. The Respondent highlighted that the petitioner was given opportunities to file objections, but none were submitted. Despite the petitioner's submission of documents post the initial notice, no formal objections were raised, leading to the issuance of the impugned assessment order demanding payment. The Court found that the petitioner's grievance about the lack of a specific Proposition notice was unfounded. It emphasized that the initial notice adequately informed the petitioner of the issues at hand and the need for objections. Since no objections were raised despite opportunities provided, the Court held that the petitioner could not claim a breach of natural justice. Additionally, the Court pointed out that the reassessment order was appealable to the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) under the KVAT Act, providing the petitioner with a proper forum to raise objections. Given the availability of an effective alternative remedy through the appellate authority, the Court concluded that entertaining the petition under Article 226 was unnecessary. It held that the petitioner could present objections before the appellate authority, whose powers were equivalent to those of the Assessing Authority. Consequently, the Court rejected the petition, emphasizing the existence of a statutory remedy for the petitioner and declined to award costs in the matter.
|