Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2013 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (5) TMI 757 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxNotice issued in Form U (Notice for recovery of money) attaching the Bank Account of the petitioner - alleged that the petitioner has claimed ITC wrongly due to E1 sales not proved, stock variation and stocks were kept in the un-registered godown - Held that:- A spot inspection had been conducted by the 2nd respondent and his officials on 02.08.2012 and on the same day, a cheque for a sum of ₹ 3,75,699/- was collected from the assessee other than a sum of ₹ 2,000/- collected towards compounding fee. In fact, the 1st respondent is the original assessing authority. Though, it is the 2nd respondent who had conducted the spot inspection, after noticing the discrepancies in the books of accounts, etc., the 2nd respondent ought to have either issued a notice to the petitioner pointing out all the discrepancies or he should have intimated the discrepancies to the 1st respondent for further course of action. On the alleged discrepancies, either the 2nd respondent or the 1st respondent, should have heard the assessee and then pass an order demanding whatever be the tax due therefrom. Even after such a demand, if the assessee had not paid the tax due thereon, by all means, the authorities are empowered to take any action. But, in this case, a notice pointing out the discrepancies had not been issued to the assessee; no opportunity was afforded to the assessee to put forth its defence and no notice of demand of tax due was served on the assessee. Instead of doing all these things, the 1st respondent has cast a Notice in Form U (Notice for recovery of money) which is per se illegal and unsustainable and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Thus the impugned notice is set aside & writ petition is allowed.
|