9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 646X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant has come up in appeal against the order dated 31.05.2018 (Annexure A-8) passed by the U.T. VAT Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). The business premises of M/s. Himachal Bhawan Madhya Marg, Sector 28, Chandigarh were inspected by a team of Excise and Taxation Officers U.T., Chandigarh on 19.11.2010 in the presence of Anil Kumar Goel, Senior Accountant. During inspection proceedings, balance sheet for the years 2000-01 to 2009-10, sales statements prepared by the Accountant were impounded and subsequently, the proceedings were initiated by issuing ten notices for framing assessment for the years 2000-01 to 2009-10. The Excise and Taxation Officer-cum- Designated Officer vide order dated 27.12.2010 frame ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the date the gross turnover exceeds Rs.40,000/-. Since, the liability has not been determined as per law and as such the date of liability i.e. 1.7.2000 fixed by the Assessing Authority is liable to be quashed. ii. That the Assessing Authority, while framing assessment u/s 29(2) has not followed the procedure laid down u/s 29(5) of the Act. The Assessing Authority has never proposed any ground for the proposed assessment, therefore, assessment is against the principles of natural justice and thus liable to be quashed. iii. That since the date of liability has not been determined when the appellant had applied under PGST Act, 1948 (as applicable to U.T., Chandigarh), on 22.06.2000, therefore, the validity of the dealer shall be en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ), U.T., Chandigarh vide order dated 01.08.2012 (Annexure A-6). The Tribunal observed that the appellant had filed sales tax return for the period 01.07.2000 to 04.12.2000 and paid tax to the tune of Rs.80,240/- on 28.05.2001. But thereafter, appellant failed to deposit the tax collected from the customers and during the inspection of the business premises, it was detected that the appellant was liable to pay tax under the State Act as the appellant did not get registered under the erstwhile (now repealed) Act of 1948 and CST Act, 1956. Finally, the Tribunal observed that the assessment had been rightly framed for the period 2006-2007 to 2009-2010 creating tax demand of Rs.6,31,250/-, Rs.6,28,529/-, Rs.9,80,698/- and Rs.10,41,460/-. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as further argued that even though the appellant had deposited the tax demand of Rs.6,31,250/-, Rs.6,28,529/-, Rs.9,80,698/- and Rs.10,41,460/- but this cannot be a ground to dismiss the appeals by the Tribunal being infructuous. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the office record. 7. In the present case, the tax has already been deposited by the appellant as observed by the Tribunal in order dated 31.05.2018 (Annexure A-8). Moreover, on merits, after examining the order dated 01.08.2012 passed by the Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner, (Appeals), U.T., Chandigarh, it is found that the assessment has been made after examining documents which were recovered during the inspection from the business premises of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
