9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 898X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 2014 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 36(1) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (in short "the Act") against the order dated 4.1.2013 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Haryana Tax Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in STR No. 77 of 2011-12 claiming the following substantial questions of law:- i. Whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the review petition even after coming out of fresh facts in the case as the identification of the person to whom the notice was served has been established? ii. Whether the service of notice to Sh. Manoj Kumar who was regularly employed by the firm for maintaining day to day accounts, preparation of quarterly returns and submission of returns with the department is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the present appeal. 3. Learned State counsel submitted that the notice was duly served on Shri Manoj Kumar who was regularly employed by the assessee-firm for maintaining day to day accounts. Once that was so, the Tribunal has erred in nullifying the assessment. 4. After hearing learned State counsel, we do not find any merit in the appeal. 5. The Tribunal while allowing the appeal of the assessee firm had recorded as under:- "6. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and also gone through the facts of the case and the impugned orders. A perusal of the order dated 23.3.2010 of the Assessing Authority reveals that it is a non-speaking and cryptic order. No facts about the non-appearance of the appellant have been given to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 15(2) of the Act ibid as it would mean to allowing the time barred assessment. Thus, the impugned orders of both the Assessing Authority and the First Appellate Authority are non-sustainable in the eyes of law and are accordingly quashed. The appeal is allowed." 6. A perusal of the above shows that the notice was not validly served upon the assessee in terms of Rule 79 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Rules, 2003. The Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the identity of the person to whom the notice was served was not established. Further, in pursuance to the notices dated 21.11.2008 and 23.6.2009, why no action was taken and exparte proceedings were not initiated if valid notice was served. It was also held that Manoj Kumar was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
