Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 187 (PAT)

Bansi Pharma v. State Of Bihar

2007-01-25

AFTAB ALAM, REKHA KUMARI

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Gautam Kejriwal, counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Nilu Agrawal, G.A.-X representing the State. 2. The petitioner is a dealer registered under the Bihar Value Added Tax Act. It is aggrieved by and seeks to challenge the order dated 14.9.2006 by which its claim for Input Tax Credit on tax paid goods in stock as on 1.4.2005 was rejected solely on the ground of non-production of declarations in Form IX-C as required under Rule 13(e) of the Bihar Value Added Tax Rules. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the declaration in Form-D- II was filed within forty days from 1.4.2005, as required under Rule 56 of the Rules, it lay pending before the authority and was finally rejected after about 15 months without even giving it an opportunity of hearing. As to the non-production of Form- IXC, counsel submitted that the petitioners assessment for the period 2004-05 was completed by order, dated 11.5.2006. In course of assessment proceeding the petitioner had produced 34 declarations in Form-IXC which were duly taken into account by the Assessing Officer and on that basis the gross turn over submitted by the petitioner was accepted. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the relevant declarations in Form-IXC might not have been physically tagged to the declaration in Fomn-D-ll, Form-IXC declarations were very much on the record and the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Patna wrongly rejected the petitioners claim for input tax credit without taking into consideration those Form-IXC declarations. 4. Mrs. Agrawal tried to defend the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Patna. 5. Without going into the merits of the contentions raised on behalf of the parties, we are satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the case the impugned order is fit to be set aside simply because it was passed without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. 6. We accordingly, set aside the impugned order dated 14.9.2006 and remit the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Patna to consider the petitioners claim of input tax credit on the stock in its hand as on 1.4.2005 after giving due opportunity of hearing. 7. This writ petition is allowed.