9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Scale Industrial Unit for manufacturing of Vanaspati Ghee, Refined Oil and Acid Oil etc. and registered with District Industries Centre, Kathua. The petitioner-Company was established in the year 1999 and claims to be filing returns as envisaged under Value Added Tax Act or the Central Sales Tax Act. The business premises of the petitioner was inspected on 4th May, 2000 by the Deputy Commissioner, Enforcement (Excise and Taxation) on being authorized by the respondent No. 2. The Deputy Commissioner directed the assessing authority Sales Tax Circle, Kathua to take away the benefit of exemptions being availed of by the Company under SRO 246 of 1998 dated 20.08.1998. The order came to be passed by the then Deputy Commissioner Enforcement (E&T) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Section 103 of the VAT Act no further proceedings or assessment could be reopened after coming into force of VAT Act, 2005 except the proceedings which were instituted or were continuing at the time of enforcement of VAT Act, 2005. As per the petitioner the proceedings/assessment had attained finality by the time the VAT came into operation. It is further submitted that the respondent No. 2 invoked suo moto powers of revision under Section 12 of the GST Act, 1962 as a measure of harassment though not competent to do so for the aforesaid reason. The respondent No. 2 issued notice dated 12th March, 2008 to the petitioner under Section 12 of the J&K GST Act, 1962 and reply was also given to the notice. 3. The order dated 24th April, 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellate authority and, therefore, the order impugned came to be passed by the respondent No. 2 is also the submission made by the respondents. The VAT Act, 2005 did not debar the respondent No. 2 to pass the order impugned inspite of the fact that the VAT Act had come into operation by the time the respondent No. 2 took cognizance of the matter. The revisional powers could be exercised by the respondent No. 2 and there can be no denial of the same is the plea of the respondents. 7. The learned counsels have of course argued in terms of their respective pleadings. 8. The record has also been produced by the respondents. 9. One of the grounds agitated by Mr. Rahul Pant, learned senior counsel for the petitioner in the petition is th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the record produced by the respondents does not make out adequately that the petitioner was given a fair chance to place the contentions that may have been raised by the petitioner to counter the notice issued by the respondent No. 2 though it is also a fact that the petitioner had filed a reply to the notice. The proceedings remained pending with the respondent for a period of about one year cannot be disputed. What prevented the respondent No. 2 to hear the version of the petitioner is best known to the said respondent. The Assessing Authority after remand of the case from the appellate authority had issued an order which favoured the petitioner and therefore it became more of a reason that the petitioner should have been heard mandat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
