9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1594X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to consideration as a lead case. 3. The petitioner, a proprietorship concern, is a dealer registered under the provisions of the VAT Act. A survey was conducted by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti Evasion, Ward I of the place of business of the petitioner under the provisions of Section 75 of the VAT Act. During the survey, the petitioner-assessee did not produce the books of account and therefore, vide notice dated 25.4.16 issued by the said authority the petitioner was directed to produce sale and purchase vouchers, bilties, books of account, bank transaction statement, VAT declarations etc. from the date of registration of the business concern till the date of survey. The said notice was followed by notices dated 11.5.16, 20.5.16 and 13.11.17. 4. After the petitioner producing the requisite record, the authority which conducted the survey, submitted the inspection report to the Deputy Commissioner (Administration), Commercial Taxes, Sriganganagar and recommended for registration of the case against it under the provisions of Section 61 of the Act, vide communication dated 21.2.18/23.2.18. The Deputy Commissioner (Administration), Commercial Taxes vide communication ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is competent to decide the question with regard to his own jurisdiction and thus, instead of filing reply to the show cause notice, the writ petitions preferred by the petitioners straight away before this court challenging the action of the Assessing Authority in initiating the proceedings is not maintainable. Learned counsel submitted that pursuant to order issued by the Deputy Commissioner (Administration), Commercial Taxes, Sriganganagar, the survey of the business premises of the petitioners was conducted under Section 75 of the VAT Act on 25.4.16. At the time of survey, the record produced by the petitioners, revealed that the petitioners had availed ITC under Form 7A for the year 2012- 13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 whereas, no physical transfer of the goods had taken place. Upon inspection of the books of account, the Anti Evasion authority prepared the inspection report dated 21.2.18/23.2.18, which was forwarded to Deputy Commissioner (Administration), Commercial Taxes, with the recommendation to register the case against the petitioners under Section 61(2) of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner (Administration) in its turn vide order dated 13.3.18 transferred the proceedings for f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section (1) shall not be made after the expiry of a period of six months from the date of making out the case. However, the Commissioner may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, in any particular case, extend this time limit for a further period not exceeding six months. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where notice has been issued under sub-section (1), the authority issuing such notice shall be competed to make the assessment for the relevant year. (5) No notice under sub-section (1) shall be issued after the expiry of five years from the end of the relevant year. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3) and (5), where any proceeding relating to an assessment is subject to adjudication before the Tax Board or a competent court or any other authority under this Act, assessment in such matters may be passed within two years from the final adjudication of such proceedings. The limitation of two years shall be counted from the date of communication of the order of such final adjudication to the assessing authority. Explanation. For the purpose of this section the expression "date of making out the case" means the date on which notice in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 75(1)(b), which empowers the officer not below the rank of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer to direct the dealer to produce accounts, registers and documents relating to business activities for examination. The subsequent notices were also issued under Section 75(1) of the VAT Act inasmuch as, pursuant to the notice dated 25.4.16, the petitioners-assessees had sought time to produce the record but failed to do so. The proceedings remained pending on account of the petitioners not producing the record. It is not disputed before this court that after the petitioners producing the requisite record, the authority conducting the survey submitted the report to the Deputy Commissioner (Administration), Commercial Taxes, Sriganganagar, and recommended to register the case against them under Section 61 of the VAT Act. Thereupon, the Deputy Commissioner (Administration), transferred the proceedings to the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Anti Evasion, Sriganganagar for further action. Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes initiated the proceedings against the petitioners-assessees under Section 25, 18, 55 and 61(2) of the VAT Act for evasion of tax and rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
