By Dr. K. Shivaram, Ajay R. Singh Advocates
fiogf49gjkf0d
ABG Infralogistics Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors Writ Petition (L) No. 2935 and 2936 of 2013 Bombay HC dated 25-11-2013
The Petitioner has raised various contentions including the contention that the petitioner was never served with the notice for the relevant years and that the petitioner or its representative had never appeared before the AO and still the impugned assessment order refers to a Chartered Accountant having attended on 24th June, 2011 and requesting the Assessing Officer for adjournment and considering his request the said Chartered Accountant was called on 26th June 2013, but he did not appear till the date of passing of the asst. order nor any communication was received from him. Hence, the orders were passed u/s. 23(2) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act.
The respondents opposed the petition and submitted that the representative of the petitioner did appear before the Assessing Officer on 24th June, 2013 as mentioned in the ‘roznama’ for the aforesaid two asst. years, 2005-06 and 2008-09, and has therefore received the notice for the asst. years 2005-06 and 2008-09.
The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that those two authorisations for the asst. years 2006-07 and 2007-08 were purportedly issued on 28th June 2013, but according to the AO, the said Chartered Accountant appeared for the petitioner on 24th June, 2013 without any authorisation having been produced at the hearing before him.
The Hon’ble Court observed that the petitions involve serious disputed questions of fact as well as questions of law on merits of the controversy and, therefore, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of filing appeal before the Dy. Commissioner of Sales tax (Appeals). The court directed the petitioner to file appeals before the Dy. Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals) within 2 weeks and directed the appellate authority to entertain the appeals and examine all contentions without raising the plea of limitation as far as the filing of appeals was concerned and decide the appeals in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
The court further directed that till the appellate authority decided the appeals, the impugned demand notices shall not be implemented or enforced.
As regards the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner had not received any notice for the aforesaid years and had not issued any authorisation in favour of the concerned Chartered Accountant, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the authorisation issued by the petitioner in favour of the said Chartered Accountant for the asst. years 2006-07 and 2007-08. The Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that since the Chartered Accountant was appearing for the petitioner for those two years, the AO proceeded on the basis that the same Chartered Accountant was appearing for the petitioner for the two years under consideration, i.e., 2005-06 and 2008-09.
