9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m (West) and Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (ST), Sales Tax Officer, Gurugram (West). The petitioner is engaged in the business of developing residential and commercial projects. The business premises of the petitioner were inspected by the respondents on 16.03.2016 and certain documents were impounded. On the basis of the impounded material, proceedings under Section 29 of the Act were initiated by issuing a notice dated 15.07.2016. A reply dated 10.10.2016 was filed to the notice. The respondents rejected the contentions and directed the petitioner to produce necessary documents for framing assessment. The dealer failed to submit any document in support of his claims. The judgment was reserved on 18.11.2016. The State of Harya ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst the contractor were to be kept in abeyance and such cases on final payment of entire liability could have become infructuous. The petitioner never informed respondent No.2 about the acceptance of his application. An order dated 28.02.2017 was passed in the proceedings where order was reserved on 18.11.2016. The order created a liability of Rs. 81,62,87,724/-. The liability includes liability of the petitioner for the period 2011-12 as a builder/developer to the tune of Rs. 53,96,78,860/- and the balance demand of Rs. 27,66,08,864/- was on account of liability of the petitioner for the work done as a contractor. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 28.02.2017. The issue raised is that once his application for Amnesty h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana thereon shall be final." The contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The order accepting the application under the Amnesty Scheme was a conditional order. The Amnesty was given only qua the liability of the petitioner as a builder and developer. It was specifically mentioned that the liability of the dealer to pay tax for his liability as contractor or sub-contractor would not be absolved. The proceeding could not have been rendered infructuous as the proceeding had a cumulative effect of determining tax payable as a developer and as a contractor. The impugned order has raised a demand on account of liability under both the heads i.e. the builder/developer a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
