9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (10) TMI 571 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax
Issues:
Challenge to remand order dated May 29, 2004, passed by Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Indore, in Revision No. 50 of 2004 and Revision No. 21 of 2004, involving the same petitioner and assessment order dated November 24, 2003, passed by Commercial Tax Officer. Analysis: The High Court addressed the challenge to the remand order in a writ petition filed by the petitioner. The revisionary order set aside the ex parte assessment made by the Commercial Tax Officer and directed a fresh inquiry by the assessing authority based on observations made by the revisionary authority. The Court noted that in cases where liability is not yet determined, and factual inquiry is needed to examine transactions, interference by the High Court in writ jurisdiction is not warranted. The petitioner argued that since certain findings were in their favor, there was no need for remand, suggesting the revisionary authority should have decided the case on merits. However, the Court disagreed, emphasizing the need for further factual inquiry due to the ex parte nature of the assessment. The Court highlighted the discretion of the revisionary authority to remand for inquiry and the importance of allowing the petitioner to prove the real nature of the transaction under assessment. Referring to legal precedents cited by the petitioner, the Court distinguished the facts of the case at hand from those decisions, asserting that the general principles laid down did not apply. The Court upheld the revisionary authority's decision to remand the case, finding no error in the remand order and dismissing the petition for lacking merit. The Court directed the assessing officer to complete the proceedings within three months and ordered the State counsel and Registry to inform the assessing officer of the decision. In conclusion, the High Court's judgment upheld the remand order, emphasizing the necessity of further factual inquiry in cases where liability is undetermined. The Court underscored the discretion of the revisionary authority in deciding to remand for inquiry and rejected the petitioner's argument against the remand. The judgment provided clarity on the legal principles guiding such cases and directed timely completion of the proceedings by the assessing officer.
|
