TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 802X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed a finality, the assessee cannot feign ignorance of their liability. That all the columns in Form-I notice are not filled up can hardly be an excuse for an assessee under the relevant taxing statutes, once it is shown that taxes were assessed after following due process of law and once it is shown that such determination has also been served on the assessee concerned. In this case the notices before passing orders of assessment and penalty were served on the petitioner. The orders of assessments and orders of penalty were sent by registered post. It is not the case of the petitioner that they had no knowledge about the order of assessment or the order of penalty. Therefore, an attack a mere demand made in writing, which is the first st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5) The petitioner was first served with a notice of arrears dated 29.01.2019, indicating the amount payable by them towards VAT dues as ₹ 69,11,684/-. Before the petitioners could recover from the shock of such a demand, a notice under Section 8 of the Act, 1864 in Form-I was slapped on them indicating the arrears payable as ₹ 1,38,28,350/-. This was under Section 8 of the Act, 1864. Therefore, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition challenging the Form-I notice. 6) According to Mr.Ram Sharan Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, the series of steps prescribed in Section 8 of the Act, 1864 has not been followed by the respondents and that the notice issued in Form-I contains lot of bla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the period from February, 2017 to June, 2017. 11) On the basis of the above documents, it was contended by Mr.J.Anil Kumar, learned Special Standing Counsel that all the three amounts namely the tax of ₹ 65,46,663/-, the penalty of ₹ 65,46,663/- and the tax of ₹ 13,03,848/- for the period from February, 2017 to June, 2017 totaled to more than the amount indicated in Form-I. In other words his contention is that what is stipulated in Form-I notice is actually less than what was already determined as payable by the petitioner to the knowledge of the petitioner. 12) Keeping in mind the contention of the learned Special Standing Counsel, if we have a look at Section 8 of the Act, 1864, it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Second: Writing to state that the distrained property will be sold:- The writing shall further set forth that the distrained property will be immediately brought to public sale, unless the amount, with interest, batta, and all the expenses of the distress be previously discharged. Third: Service when defaulter is absent: When a defaulter may be absent, a copy of the writing, with the endorsement, shall be fixed or left at his usual place of residence or on the premises where the property may have been distrained, before the expiration of the third day, calculating from the day of the distress. 14) A careful look at Form-I notice which is challenged in this writ petition would show that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , an attack a mere demand made in writing, which is the first step prescribed in Section 8 of the Act, 1864, cannot be sustained. 17) All the steps indicated in Section 8 of the Act, 1864, are intended to make a person, who is un-aware of things, become aware of what is due. They are not intended as a mere formality to reinforce what is already known to assessee as due. Therefore, we find no irregularities in the demand made in writing by the respondents. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. 18) After the conclusion of the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought atleast two weeks time to make payment. Since the request is reasonable, the petitioner is granted two weeks time from the date of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
