TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 1027X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no notice for rejection of branch transfer and converting the same into interstate sales was ever given and further that the assessing authority had erred in treating branch transfer as interstate sales. The JETC (A) had rejected the plea that notice in form N-2 was not issued to the assessee. However, with regard to the question that the transaction as made by the appellant was branch transfer or interstate sales, the matter had been remitted to the assessing authority with direction to confront all the material which he was relying upon to the appellant. The assessment order was passed on 29.03.2013. In such circumstances, there cannot be stated to be any force in the argument as raised by the appellant that notice VAT N-2 had not been validly served upon it. The Tribunal had also taken note of the fact that the above named Sh. Rajeev Kumar had subsequently furnished an affidavit on 17.04.2018 swearing therein that his signatures on statement dated 01.06.2017 was obtained on blank papers. The Tribunal had rejected this plea and in our opinion rightly so in view of the fact that the affidavit so sworn by Sh. Rajiv Kumar was dated 17.04.2018 i.e. only on the day when the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant for sale of its products. It was submitted that for the assessment year 2009-10, the appellant had filed all the four quarterly returns in form VAT R-1 in time and had showed a GTO @ Rs.8,72,52,148/-. The annual return in form VAT R-2 was also submitted in time along with copy of trading account, profit and loss account and balance sheet. It had shown gross turnover of more than Rs.600/- lacs in a year. Its case was taken up in scrutiny by the revenue. However, notice in form N-2 which was statutory in making scrutiny assessment under Section 15(3) of the HVAT Act and CST Act was not issued to the appellant. The assessing officer vide order dated 29.03.2013 denied the claim of the appellant with regard to transfer of its stock to its branches and offices outside State of Haryana in a wrong manner and additional tax demand of Rs.34,23,021/- was created. The appellant-assessee filed appeals against the order dated 29.03.2013 passed by the assessing officer before the Joint Excise Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) (for short JETC (A) ) who vide order dated 16.04.2014 remitted the case to the assessing authority with direction to confront all the material which he was relyi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant that no notice was received by him had also not been taken into consideration and further that in the subsequent notices issued against the appellant, there was no reference qua issuance of notice and serving of notice VAT N-2 upon the appellant. It was, therefore, urged that the proceedings for scrutiny assessment were not held validly and the same were liable to be declared void ab initio. With these broad arguments, it was submitted that the appeals deserved to be allowed. To fortify his argument, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon authority cited as Daya Ram and Company v. State of Haryana, 2013 (60) VST 241, wherein the notice issued by revenue was received by a friend of the appellant. It was held by a Coordinate Bench of this Court that the notice had not been validly served upon the appellant and serving notice upon friend of the appellant did not fall within the array of the persons specified under Rule 79 (1) (a) of the Rules, 2003. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, argued that there was sufficient material on record to prove that the notice VAT N- 2 was duly served upon the assessee. The accountant of the appellantassess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for initiating assessment proceedings. The Tribunal had taken into consideration the fact that as on 01.06.2017, Sh. Rajeev Kumar, Accountant of the appellant had made a statement that there was valid service of VAT N-2 notice on the assessee through its gatekeeper. Perusal of the proceedings conducted by the assessing officer reveals that the above named Sh. Rajeev Kumar, Accountant had been putting up appearance before the assessing officer during the assessment proceedings. Of course, that was pursuant to the notice as issued by the assessing officer and not otherwise. On a perusal of the assessment order (Annexure A-1) it is clearly revealed that Sh. Rajeev Kumar had put up appearance before the assessing officer on 24.01.2013, 05.02.2013 and 20.02.2013. The assessment order was passed on 29.03.2013. In such circumstances, there cannot be stated to be any force in the argument as raised by the appellant that notice VAT N-2 had not been validly served upon it. The Tribunal had also taken note of the fact that the above named Sh. Rajeev Kumar had subsequently furnished an affidavit on 17.04.2018 swearing therein that his signatures on statement dated 01.06.2017 was obtained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
