TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd, as is required under Section 53(3) of the Act, 2004. A perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that the proceedings were initiated under Section 31(1) of the TVAT Act, 2004, but no separate notice was issued under section 53(1) of the Act, 2004 before imposition of penalty. Without going into the other issue of absence of prescribed format for submission of audited return in terms of Section 53(1) of the Act, 2004, the impugned penalty imposed upon the petitioner amounting to Rs. 2,73,800.30 vide order dated 30.03.2022 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) is quashed. However, it is made clear that except the penalty part, the rest of the assessment order remains intact - Petition allowed. - W.P.(C) 549/2022 - - - Dated:- 2-5-202 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 53(3) of the Act, 2004, and in violation of principles of natural justice as well. 4. Learned GA for the respondents-State, Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, has at the outset drawn the attention of this court to the letter dated 15.12.2020 (Annexure A to the counter affidavit) submitted by the Director of the petitioner-company before the respondent no. 2 regarding submission of audit reports for the year 2015-16 to 2018-19. It is pointed out from the said letter that the petitioner did not take any plea of absence of prescribed format under the Rules for delayed submission of the audited reports for the relevant assessment years 2015-16 to 2018-19, which includes the present assessment year in question 2016-17. The petitioner has also not shown ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... senior counsel for the writ petitioner has categorically submitted that the petitioner accepts the rest of the assessment order and is ready to pay the tax liability imposed upon him. 6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties, and having gone through the relevant materials pleaded from the record, we are of the considered view that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner for violation of Section 53(1) of the TVAT Act, 2004 suffers from lack of proper notice and absence of reasonable opportunity of being heard, as is required under Section 53(3) of the Act, 2004. A perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that the proceedings were initiated under Section 31(1) of the TVAT Act, 2004, but no separate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
