9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Special Civil Application No. 7844 of 2018. Brief facts would be needed. The common judgment of the High Court disposed of two petitions - one of them being Special Civil Application No. 7844 of 2016, filed by the applicant. The petitioner was visited with two notices for assessment - both dated 13th April 2016 for the years 2011-2012 and 2013-2014. The respondent authorities had also on the same date issued two demand notices for a sum of Rs. 32,75,868/= and matching penalty @ 100% thereof, and Rs. 18,63,078/= with similar penalty. The petitioner challenged such communications in the said petition and took up several contentions; including that the assessment notices were barred by limitation and that the demand of entry tax raised by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the provisions of Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, if at all the same is allowable. Similarly, while filing return-cum-challan and making the payment of entry tax, the importer shall be entitled to reduction in tax liability as provided under Section 4 of the Act. Even in the form 1 there is a specific column with respect to the reduction in tax liability as per Section 4(1)(2) of the Act. Therefore, while making payment of entry tax as demanded, the petitioner shall be entitled to deduction in tax liability as provided under Section 4 of the Act. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, challenge to the impugned notice/demand cum notice fail." The High Court, therefore, held and observed as under :- "15. Now, so far as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and to set aside the demand notices dated 13th April 2016 is made, with a further direction to the authorities to undertake the assessment for the periods 2011- 2012 and 2013-2014. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having perused the material on record, what we gather is that the High Court, while disposing of the main petition of the present petitioner did not shut down the petitioner's doors for contesting the assessment. We may recall, the petitioner's ground of "no justifiable tax demand" met with the response of the Court that the said aspect can be considered in the assessment proceedings, provided the petitioner files returncum- challan and responds to the notice for assessment. It was further observed that as and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sire, as emanates from the portion reproduced, was that the petitioner must submit to the jurisdiction of the assessing authority, file return-cumchallan and also deposit "tax" as demanded. It was in this context that the Court observed that the petitioner's contention that no tax can be collected before assessment is not backed by the scheme of the Act. The petitioner's further contention regarding credit of such tax paid not being made available was also repelled. The question of credit of tax would arise only with respect to the tax and not the penalty. This is an inbuilt indication in the judgment which would convince us that the High Court required the petitioner, at this stage to deposit the principal sum of tax, but not the penalty; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
