2013 (1) TMI 701 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Non serving of notice for hearing - Held that - There is no order of the revisional authority to show that it was satisfied that ordinarily a notice could not have been served by hand or by post and to direct service by affixture of the notice in absence of which the contention of the petitioner appears to be correct that no notice was served upon the petitioner and the matter was decided ex parte. Appeal allowed. Matter remitted back to respondent No. 2 to decide the revision case afresh. The petitioner herein if advised so may file forms C and E1 before respondent No. 2 on or before the aforesaid date and in case of filing such forms before respondent No. 2 along with an application in this regard respondent No. 2 shall consider the application in accordance with law and shall take cognizance of the aforesaid forms for deciding the matter.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to imposition of Central sales tax for specific assessment years; Failure to serve notice to the petitioner for hearing; Non-production of forms C and E1 before the assessing officer; Legal procedure for service of notice under the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Rules, 1995; Applicability of settled law regarding filing of forms C and E1 before the revisional authority.

Analysis:

The judgment addresses two writ petitions filed by the same party challenging the imposition of Central sales tax for two consecutive assessment years. The petitioner contended that no notice was served for the hearing date, and the procedure for notice service as per Rule 86 of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Rules, 1995 was not followed. The petitioner also sought permission to produce forms C and E1 before the revisional authority for a lower tax assessment. The Government Advocate opposed, citing the petitioner's failure to appear before the revisional authority despite multiple notices.

The court examined Rule 86(1) of the Commercial Tax Rules, emphasizing that notice should be served by hand or post, with affixture allowed only if other methods fail. Notably, no service report by affixture was presented, indicating the petitioner's claim of non-service was plausible. Thus, the court set aside the previous order and directed the revisional authority to rehear the case.

Regarding the production of forms C and E1, the court referred to a Division Bench ruling allowing such filings post initial assessment rejection. Following this precedent, the petitioner was permitted to submit the forms before the revisional authority for consideration in accordance with the law.

The judgment concluded by issuing specific directions: setting aside the previous order, remitting the case for fresh consideration, scheduling a hearing date, allowing form submissions, and urging a timely decision by the revisional authority. No costs were awarded considering the case circumstances.