Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2013 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (3) TMI 521 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxTax Evasion - block assessment as the petitioner submitted incomplete tax statements for the period 1.4.2006 to 6.8.2008 - Anti Evasion Bureau investigated the transaction - revisional authority raised the demand - Held that:- As decided in Girdhari Lal Nannelal Versus Sales Tax Commissioner, M. P. [1976 (3) TMI 51 - SUPREME COURT] the payment of income tax in respect of the unexplained income may not hold good in sale tax case because in sales tax case the authority has to hold the actual amount of sale, which has been concealed by the assessee. But in the present case, the authority has relied on the assessment in fixing the amount of sale of the tax fixed by the income tax department for the year 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. Similarly, the authority has relied on the report of New Dixit Transport Commission Agent. The petitioner specifically requested to summon the witnesses and permit the petitioner to cross examine the witness of the transport authority, but the authority has not examined the aforesaid witness. It has simply relied the statement of the transport agent before the Anti Evasion Bureau, which were the part of the report of Anti Tax Evasion Bureau. From the perusal of the orders passed by the authority it is clear that the authority has fixed the amount of sale, which was escaped from income, on the basis of the report submitted by the Anti Evasion Bureau. However, the authority was performing the quasi judicial function. Hence, it was obligatory on the part of the authority to arrive on its own findings and the authority was obliged to adopt the procedure, which is known to the law. Thus the procedure adopted by the authority is against the law and perverse. The authority relied on the Income Tax returns and the findings of the enquiry report of New Dixit Transport Commission Agent without assessing the contents independently. The arguments advanced by the petitioner that the assessment is beyond the power of authority and beyond the period of limitation could not be accepted because in the present case, the assessment is for block period, which is in accordance with Section 55-A of the VAT Act and it was introduced vide amendment of Act No.26/2007 that for the purpose of this section the expression "block period" shall mean the period comprising of six years preceding the year in which the requisition was made or the inspection was conducted and shall include the period upto the date of requisition or inspection.In such circumstances, vide notification dt.6.4.2011 (Annexure P/10) filed by the petitioner alongwtih the petition the government has power to extend the period of limitation because at that time, the period of limitation was not expired. Hence, the contention of the petitioner in this regard is hereby rejected. The impugned orders of revisionary authority are hereby quashed, however, it is hereby clarified that the authorities are at liberty to make assessment of the petitioner in accordance with law after following the procedure as mentioned in the order.
|