TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kdown, more particularly when the online response also could not be submitted due to technical glitches on the portal of the 1st respondent - However, since the time fixed for making the assessment was to expire on 31.03.2020, without providing a personal hearing as sought by the petitioner on the phone on 31.03.2020, the impugned order was passed. It appears that on account of lack of time in view of the impending lapsing of limitation for making the assessment, not only was the petitioner denied proper opportunity to personally represent its case before the 1st respondent but also errors might have crept into the order of the 1st respondent passed on 31.03.2020 - a proper opportunity was denied to the petitioner to represent its case a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... na VAT Act and also the Central Sales Tax Act, 1996 (for short the CST Act ). It filed its returns under the VAT Act and CST Act reporting the turnovers and paying applicable tax thereon. 4. Petitioner contends that for the year 2015-16 under the CST Act, the petitioner reported the turnovers; that the exports are not liable to tax under the CST Act; and that the inter-State sales of software is shown as ₹ 39,47,93,331/- and tax at 5% was paid thereon. 5. The 1st respondent took up the assessment of the petitioner for the year 2015-16. 6. The petitioner by letter dt.19.03.2019 filed the details of the turnover of CST, export and exempted sales for the year. The petitioner states that it also filed the sample invoice copies o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... personal hearing due to nationwide lockdown and that the online response also could not be submitted due to technical glitch on the portal. The petitioner requested the 1st respondent to take up personal hearing after normalcy is restored. 14. But the impugned order dt.31.03.2020 was passed by the 1st respondent and it was served on the petitioner on the same day. Contentions of Counsel for petitioner 15. Counsel for the petitioner contended that in the impugned order, the export turnover is considered at ₹ 9429.00 crore and given exemption, but the turnover for September, 2015 was not considered by the 1st respondent. He also contended that inter-State turnover was wrongly taken as ₹ 41,24,45,939/- instead of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded that the petitioner was given reasonable opportunity by the 1st respondent and in any event the petitioner has a remedy of appeal under the CGST Act which the petitioner ought to avail. Consideration by the Court 19. From the contentions of the counsel for the petitioner and the material placed on record, it is apparent that the impugned order dt.31.03.2020 was passed by the 1st respondent on the very last day for making such assessment i.e., 31.03.2020 for the period April, 2015 to March, 2016. 20. Though the 1st respondent had initiated the process through a show-cause notice on 13.06.2019, and the petitioner had responded thereto on 28.06.2019, but the 1st respondent fixed the first date of hearing as 07.03.2020 to which the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessment, not only was the petitioner denied proper opportunity to personally represent its case before the 1st respondent but also errors might have crept into the order of the 1st respondent passed on 31.03.2020. 26. In these circumstances, we hold that proper opportunity was denied to the petitioner to represent its case and there has been violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as personal hearings were fixed on 16.03.2020 for the first time during lockdown period disabling the petitioner and causing serious prejudice to the petitioner. 27. Therefore, the existence of alternative remedy of appeal available to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order of Assessment dt.31.03.2020 cannot be a bar for the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
