Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be fully migrated on 31-July-2025 at 23:59:59
After this date, all services will be available exclusively on our new platform.
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know
via our feedback form
, with specific details, so we can address them promptly.
Home
2025 (3) TMI 1097 - HC - VAT / Sales TaxIssuance of personal cheque to the extent of refund wrongly availed to the officer of LVO-540 by the then consultant - order passed by predecessor can be altered in the order passed by the Successor in a different direction or not - proceedings instituted pursuant to a notice under section 64 (1) of the KVAT issued in contravention of Rule 154 of the KVAT Rules 2005 can be sustained or not - Validity of consideration of total turnovers as per erroneous monthly returns filed in form VAT-100 in the absence of the books of account ACCT Bidar - Validity of disallowance of deduction claimed towards labour like charges - HELD THAT - The indulgence in the matter declined broadly agreeing with the submission of learned AGA. Firstly the questions of law are haphazardly framed and they lack coherence both in terms of law and language. Secondly these questions are not of law inasmuch as to answer them turning the pages of statute book would not come to aid. Despite taking through the Paper Book of the appeal it is not shown which finding in the impugned order is perverse that is to say contrary to evidence borne out by record or which of the observations in the impugned order are made without evidentiary basis. The vehement submission of the learned counsel appearing for the assessee that his client was not given a reasonable opportunity to produce relevant evidentiary material such as books of accounts is liable to be rejected inasmuch as despite granting opportunity the assessee failed to avail the same. The vehement submission of learned counsel for the appellant that for the fraud committed by the Tax Consultant the assessee should not be made to suffer is too broad a proposition to accept. Ordinarily as rightly submitted by learned AGA Tax Consultant is an Agent of the assessee notwithstanding the professional elements involved in the Act. It is not that the assessee had not put his signatures to the Returns and Records filed before the Revenue in a normative way. The last contention of the appellant s counsel that the respondent had approached the matter with prejudicial mind is too farfetched a submission. Why a high functionary of the State who acts quasi-judicially in deciding the tax liability of the assessee should be presumed to be prejudicial remains unanswered. Such a contention cannot be countenanced without laying foundational basis. A perusal of the impugned order in the light of other material accompanying the appeal memo leaves no manner of doubt that the respondent has judiciously considered all contentions of the assessee as reflected in the impugned order. Conclusion - i) The questions presented were not coherent questions of law. The appellant failed to demonstrate any perverse findings or observations in the impugned order without evidentiary basis. ii) The argument that the appellant was not given a reasonable opportunity to present evidence noting that the appellant did not avail the opportunity provided rejected. iii) The argument that the tax consultant s fraudulent actions should absolve the appellant of responsibility highlighting that the consultant acted as the appellant s agent rejected. iv) There are no basis for the claim that the respondent acted with a prejudicial mind noting the lack of foundational evidence for such a contention. Appeal dismissed.
|