Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2017 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 627 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxJurisdiction - assessment - whether notices of default assessment of the tax and interest under Section 32 of the Act dated 15th May, 2017 have been issued by the concerned VATO exercising jurisdiction on the Petitioner? - Held that: - Under Section 66, the powers of the Commissioner have been delegated to the Special Commissioner, VATO and to such other person, as the Government thinks necessary. Thus, the notice under Section 32 of the Act can only be issued by the VATO who exercises jurisdiction on a party on the concerned date. The Court merely directed that the OHA shall decide the objections of the Petitioner after “the concerned VATO” has passed the order in respect of the 1st and 2nd quarters of 2015-16 within a period of two months from 15th March, 2017. The presumption by the Respondent that this direction should be deemed to be considered as acceptance by this Court that the AVATO Ward-72 had jurisdiction, is not borne out from the order. In any event, the question of jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter specifically when the imposition of tax and penalty thereupon are concerned, and hence the issue of jurisdiction ought to have been decided by the Respondent before proceeding further. The stand of the Respondent that it could not have waited for a decision on jurisdiction first before passing the assessment orders, as the time period fixed as per the order dated 15th March 2017, also appears to be clearly an attempt to cover up its own delay, inasmuch as, after the said order which prescribed two months for the entire exercise to be completed, the Respondent waited till 9th May, 2017 to issue even the first notice under Section 59 of the Act. Ward No.69 being the correct Ward from where the Petitioner carries on its business, and this fact already being well within the knowledge of the authorities since 22nd January, 2016, the AVATO Ward-72 clearly lacked the jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders. Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
|