9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of natural justice, and as being contrary to the Circular instructions of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The 1st respondent passed an assessment order on 17.02.2014 subjecting the petitioner to tax for the period 01.04.2009 to 30.10.2013. Prior thereto, a show cause notice dated 31.01.2014 was issued to the petitioner, a copy of which was served on them on 05.02.2014. By the show cause notice dated 31.01.2014, the petitioner was called upon to show cause, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the show cause notice, why they should not be subjected to tax. The one week period, stipulated in the show-cause notice, expired on 12.02.2014. The petitioner claims to have addressed a letter dated 13.02.2014 seek ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entation. Section 2(36) of the Act defines "tax period" to means a calendar month or any other period as may be prescribed. It is not in dispute that no rule has been made by the Government prescribing any other period as the tax period. Consequently, the "tax period" continues to remain a calendar month. Under Section 21(3) of the Act, where the authority prescribed is not satisfied with a return filed by the VAT dealer, or the return appears to be incorrect or incomplete, he shall assess, to the best of his judgment, within four years of the due date of the return, or within four years of the date of filing of the return, whichever is earlier. Section 20 of the Act relates to returns and self-assessments, and Sub-Section (1) thereof sti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not supported by any evidence on record. From the endorsement of the Commercial Tax Officer dated 18.02.2014, it appears that the representation of the petitioner was received in the office of the 1st respondent only on 18.02.2014. While the assessment order dated 17.02.2014 may have been served on the petitioner after 18.02.2014, the fact remains that the said assessment order was uploaded on the website of the Department on 17.02.2014 itself. It is evident, therefore, that the assessment order was passed on 17.02.2014 as it is only thereafter that the said order could have been uploaded on the website of the Department. In the absence of any material on record, to support the petitioner's plea that their representation dated 13.02.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e not put forth before the Assessing Authority. The Appellate Authority refused to accept the submission of the petitioner that their books of accounts etc., were soiled/lost during floods holding that the authorised representative, at the time of hearing, had failed to file any documentary evidence, such as I.T. returns, copies of books of accounts i.e. purchase ledger, sale ledger etc. or any logical working statement relating to the 126 teakwood log trees; and there was no explanation as to how this number of 126 teakwood logs, and its value as Rs. 59,52,967/-, was arrived at. The appellate authority held that, as no documentary evidence was shown or filed to support the petitioner's claim that certain teakwood logs had drifted during fl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
