TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e on which the matter was remanded by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - S. B. Sales Tax Revision Petition Nos. 107, 108, 109, 110, 145, 148 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 29-1-2015 - MOHAMMAD RAFIQ J. N. K. Maloo, Senior Counsel with Sarvesh Jain for the petitioner. R. B. Mathur with Miss Tanvi Sahai for the respondent. ORDER All these sales tax revision petitions have been filed by petitioner M/s Ajmer Auto Agencies Private Limited seeking to challenge order dated 22.02.2013 passed by Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti Evasion, Ajmer, and orders dated 26.12.2013 and 07.03.2014 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer. The Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti Evasion, Ajmer, passed an order dated 22.02.2013 imposing tax including penalty under Sections 61 and 55 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, 'the Act of 2003'). By order dated 26.12.2013, the Rajasthan Tax Board remanded the matter to the Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti Evasion, Ajmer, to decide the same afresh and vide order dated 07.03.2014 the application filed by petitioner for rectification in the order dated 26.12.2013 was rejected by the Rajasthan Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d preliminary objection along-with para-wise submissions on 21.02.2012. The CTO, based on Dealer Management System register, which, as per petitioner, does not cover discounts, bonus, exchange bonus etc., passed order on 22.02.2012 imposing tax on the turnover including penalty under Section 61 and interest under Section 55 of the Act of 2003. It was thereafter that the assessing authority passed order on 29.02.2012 under Sections 23 and 24 of the Act of 2003. Petitioner company filed an appeal on 01.05.2012 against the said order before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Ajmer, who, vide order dated 25.07.2012, set aside the demand and remanded the matters to the same Commercial Taxes Officer, Ajmer. Petitioner company filed second appeal along-with stay application before the Rajasthan Tax Board on 21.08.2012. Simultaneously, it also moved transfer application before the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Government of Rajasthan, seeking transfer of petitioner company from present CTO-AE, Ajmer to other competent authority within the State of Rajasthan. The ACCT (VAT IT), vide order dated 28.08.2012, rejected the transfer application filed by petitioner company. The CT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er should not have been remanded to the same CTO, who had prepared the case of anti evasion against the petitioner as he was bound to be biased. In this connection, he has relied on judgment of this court in Ram Chandra Sharma and Another Vs. Smt. Veera Saini RLR 2005 (1) 736. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the CTO himself had prepared the case of anti evasion, therefore, he was bound to have a biased approach towards the petitioner and remand of the matter to the CTO was wholly illegal. At the maximum, the Rajasthan Tax Board could have formulated certain questions and forwarded the same to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) for adjudication. The Rajasthan Tax Board has wrongly held that the assessing authority has acquired jurisdiction vide previous survey dated 06.01.2009 and thereafter subsequent survey dated 09.12.2011. It is argued that after invocation of Section 25 of the Act, no action was ever taken by the Department against the petitioner company for more than a period of two years. The ACTO-AE-III, Ajmer, without recording any reason, recommended the case to the Deputy Commissioner (Administration) and no statement has been recorded prior to issuance of notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gment of Division Bench of Tax Board itself in the matter of CTO Circle-B, Udaipur Vs. M/s Rajesh R Bhosle (New Delhi) reported in 2014 (38) TUD 63, in which it was held that the documents obtained from Internet cannot be relied unless they are proved by the concerned authority. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner company argued that the Tax Board was wholly unjustified in not rectifying the mistake and that the order passed by it suffers from mistakes apparent on the face of the record. Learned Senior Counsel argued that merely on the basis of details obtained from the Excise and Taxation, Gurgaon, proceedings have been initiated. Moreover, the assessing officer has not rebutted the From C and VAT 47 duly submitted by the petitioner in the initial stage when the same were provided before him. Learned Senior Counsel argued that prosecutor cannot be a judge of its own finding. Since in the present matter prosecutor ACTO never issued notice under Section 75(1) of the Act, whereas CTO directly issued notice to the petitioner on 05.10.2011 treating it a case of evasion of tax or escapement of turnover. Per contra, Shri R.B. Mathur, learned counsel for the respondent depar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
