Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2015 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 1514 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxGrant of permission for reassessment - Section 21(2) of the Act - time limitation - whether the Statutory Authority has reasons, with which he is satisfied that it is just and expedient to authorize reassessment having regard to the fact that the period of limitation has run out - Held that: - Section 21 of the Act provides for the power of reassessment. The reassessment is to be done normally within a period of two years. In case, where the time limit is overshot, it is open to the Commissioner (Additional Commissioner) to grant permission. Therefore, Section 21(2) of the Act provides for the power with the Additional Commissioner to permit reassessment beyond the period. The proviso to Section 21(2) of the Act provides that the Commissioner may, of his own, or on the basis of reasons recorded, if he is satisfied that it is just and expedient so to do, authorize the Assessing Authority for doing assessment or reassessment after expiry of the period, but not beyond a period of eight years, even if it involves a change of opinion. We cannot hold this to be a case, where the Authority has acted without there being any material at all or the materials are such that they cannot reveal a connection between the appellants and M/s Parmarth Iron (P) Limited, as it is a case of Sri H.M. Bhatia that records in the electronic form reveal that the sales were indeed effected by the appellants to M/s Parmarth Iron (P) Limited. These transactions, apparently, are denied by the appellants. As to the question as to what is the probative value of these materials and whether they would clearly show that the appellants had indeed made sales, which were not reflected in the Accounts and therefore, the appellant would become liable for the enhanced liability under the Tax law; these are all matters, in our view, which should be left open to the Assessing Authority. For these reasons, we also would not lay much store by the contentions of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that though the request was made for calling for these documents and for right to cross examination and such a request is turned down, we would think that for the said reason, we need not interfere with the order passed under Section 21 of the Act. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|