9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 804X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eous findings of the Special Task Committee and the respondents. 4. To quash the assessment orders passed by the respondent No.1. 5. To quash the impugned revision order passed by the respondent No.2. 6. To direct the respondents to allow exemption to the petitioner as per eligibility certificate and annual the order of assessment framed by respondent No.1. 7. To hold that the constitution of task force was illegal and its report is not admissible as biased report devoid of available facts and evidences. 8. Any other relief which this Hon. Court deems fit may also be granted to the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a manufacturer of Coal briquettes by way and means of mechanized coke plant and is carrying on its business since 1995. The petitioner was duly registered under the provisions of M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1995. The petitioner was granted certificate of registration by the District Industries Center after proper verification, site inspection and also by fulfilling various other requirements. Petitioner was granted exemption from payment of tax on the purchase of Coal since the petitioner was a new unit. Petitioner was granted exemption ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epartment enquired a complaint and recorded a finding that petitioner and other petitioners were indulged in tax evasion activities, and, infact they were selling coal directly in the market without manufacture of coke briquettes. On the basis of report of task force, assessments of the petitioner/M/s Shri Sharda Domestic Fuels Pvt. Ltd., Katni and others were reopened for various years. On the basis of reopened assessment, Order (Annexure P/4) dated 28.12.02 was passed by which the petitioner was held liable for payment of tax Rs.5,22,750/- and penalty on the said amount. (a) This Order (Annexure P/4) was subject-matter in revision before the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Jabalpur in Revision Case No. 262/R/2003/Prantiya and Revision Case No. 255/R/2003/Entry Tax. By a common order in almost all the cases dated 10.05.04, the Addl. Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Jabalpur remanded the matters to the Assessing Officer with certain directions as shown on page 6 and 7 of the order. (b) The Revisional Authority had found that units of the petitioner were found to be closed on the basis of statement of Sarpanch , while as per inspection notes these units were functional, and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the aforesaid grounds, in the interest of justice, the Revisional Authority had remanded the matter with a direction to extend an opportunity to the assessee before reassessment and for verification of the sales by the Assessing Officer. The Revisional Authority had further found that it was also not verified how many purchasers were found bogus, and in this regard the explanation of the assessee was also not obtained. So far as report of CBI is concerned, it was not filed before the assessing officer and that could not have been the basis for re-assessment. The report of CBI could have been examined by the Assessing Officer and after due examination of the said report along with allegations and evidence, the matter could have been decided. With the aforesaid directions, the matter was remanded to the assessing officer. 3. Before the assessing officer, the assessee was noticed. It appears that on 21.02.05 as per Annexure R/2 to R/6 certain documentary evidence were produced before the assessing officer. The assessing officer, on the basis of aforesaid, directed the assessee (i) to produce evidence in respect of the full name, address and registration number of all the purchasers w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowed to the petitioner after remand, there was full compliance of remand order. Both the authorities have rightly decided the matter against the petitioner. He has referred certain order sheets of the Assessing Officer in respect of extending opportunity to the petitioner for filing reply and for production of material. 7. To appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, we have perused the remand order (Annexure P/5). In the remand order (Annexure P/5), certain specific directions were issued to the Assessing Officer. The Revisional Authority had issued following directions :- "(i) That, for the assessment year 1997-98 no evidence was collected in respect of nonproductionby the unit; (ii) That, merely on the basis of report of task force which is non-speaking, it cannot be decided that the unit was closed before three years of the inspection; (iii) That, the evidence could have been collected in respect of tax evasion by the unit and on this evidence, an opportunity ought to have been extended to the assessee to rebut the allegations, and thereafter to pass a speaking order; (iv) That, during the period in which it is alleged that the unit remained closed, the premises w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to record such findings. 9. From the perusal of the impugned order, we find that after narration of the facts, the Revisional Authority because of nonproduction of any material before it by the petitioners reiterated the earlier order only, while as per directions issued by the Revisional Authority which are re-produced in para 7 hereinabove, the Assessing Authority was under an obligation to meet out all the aforesaid directions, but it appears that the Assessing Officer impressed with the fact that no evidence was produced before it by the assessee reiterated the earlier order,while it was under an obligation to decide the matter as directed by the Revisional Authority. When the important and vital issues are not considered by the Assessing Officer, the assessment order after remand cannot be sustained under the law. In aforesaid circumstances, matter deserves to be remanded back to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order in compliance of remand order (Annexure P/5). ( See Dharampal Satyapal Limited and another vs. State of Bihar and Others (2008) 7 SCC 19, para 6). 10. In aforesaid circumstances, we are left with no option except to remand the matter again to the Assessin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
