Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 271 (GAU)

PHUNSTOK DOLMA v. STATE OF ASSAM

2014-03-05

A.K.GOSWAMI, A.M.SAPRE

body2014
JUDGMENT A.M. Sapre, J. This is a revision filed by the petitioner under Section 81 of the Assam Value Tax Act, 2003 challenging the validity of the order dated 06.01.2014 passed by the Assam Board of Revenue, Guwahati, District Kamrup (Metro) Assam in Case No. STA 21 of 2011, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner in which the challenge was to the appellate order dated 31.3.2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes, Guwahati, Zone –A, (Appeal) which in turn arose out of assessment order dated 10.05.2010 passed by the Superintendent of Taxes Unit – D, Kar Bhawan, Dispur, Guwahati, District Kamrup (Metro) Assam. By impugned order, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner (dealer) and in turn affirmed the order of assessment passed by the assessing authority. So the question, which arises for consideration in this revision petition, is whether Tribunal was justified in dismissing the petitioner’s appeal and in turn justified in affirming the assessment order of the assessing authority. The order impugned is a short one and hence it is apposite to reproduce the same infra. “06-01-2014 ORDER Heard the learned counsels for the Appellant and the State. This is an appeal against the orders of the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes dated 31.3.2011 wherein the assessment order dated 10.5.2010 was confirmed so far as the tax is concerned, while penalty and interest were waived. The case of the Appellant is that an inspection was carried out on the basis of the inspection report, the tax has been imposed. It is seen that the Appellant was carrying a business without a valid registration under the Assam Value Added Tax Act. An inspection was carried out in which her books of accounts were seized. Based on the figures found in the books of account a notice was given to Appellant. As the Appellant did not respond to the notice, the Assessing Officer proceeded to make his assessment on the basis of what had been stated in the notice and imposed the tax, penalty and interest. Penalty and interest have been waived by the Deputy Commissioner in appeal and only the tax remains. In such a situation the plea that a copy of the inspection report was not given to the Appellant does not seem reasonable. Whatever was material for the purpose of the tax was mentioned in the notice given to the Appellant. Penalty and interest have been waived by the Deputy Commissioner in appeal and only the tax remains. In such a situation the plea that a copy of the inspection report was not given to the Appellant does not seem reasonable. Whatever was material for the purpose of the tax was mentioned in the notice given to the Appellant. The Appellant did not deem it necessary to respond to it. If she need some additional information to respond, the same could also have been sought. After having remained unconcerned to the notice served on her which gave the required details, the Appellant cannot assail the assessment on the ground that the inspection report was not served on her. The appeal does not make out a prima facie case for admission and is hence dismissed.” Mere perusal of the aforesaid order would go to show that the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the appellate court is just, legal and proper calling no interference. In the first place, the petitioner being a dealer under the provisions of the Assam Value Added Tax Act 2003, she was under obligation to file the return and pay taxes. It was not done by them. Secondly: since the petitioner was doing the business of sale of LPG gas, and hence the business done by the petitioner was subjected to payment of tax under the Act. Infact, this was not disputed by the petitioner. Thirdly: the very fact that raid had to be carried out in the petitioner’s premises to determine their tax liability because she had not filed any returns, the assessment made by the assessing authority on the basis of the material collected cannot be interfered with. It was rightly upheld by the two appellate authorities. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner was only one. According to him, the petitioner was neither given proper notice nor was given adequate opportunity in the assessment proceedings and hence the impugned orders of assessment and appellate authority are not legally sustainable for want of non-observance of principal of natural justice. We do not agree. In the first instance, the petitioner was given due show cause notice and she also availed of the same. Secondly, nothing prevented her to participate in the assessment proceedings and submit her own documents to show her extent of liability in payment of tax. She did nothing. We do not agree. In the first instance, the petitioner was given due show cause notice and she also availed of the same. Secondly, nothing prevented her to participate in the assessment proceedings and submit her own documents to show her extent of liability in payment of tax. She did nothing. Not only that, she did not file any documents in first appeal or in second appeal or even in this revision petition to show the error committed in the impugned assessment. In order to show that the assessment made was excessive or arbitrary, it was necessary for the petitioner to have proved it with reference to the documents. It was only then this court would have been able to appreciate the real prejudice caused to the petitioner in determination of her tax liability. It was again not done. Thirdly, the assessing authority rightly made best judgment assessment on the basis of documents/material collected by the raiding party from the petitioner’s business premises. The reasons assigned in support of the assessment order are just and proper. It is in conformity with the requirement of the Act. We, therefore, concur with the same calling no interference. As a matter of fact, the petitioner should feel fortunate that the assessing authority neither imposed any interest nor any penalty under the Act for the various breaches committed by her. Since the State has not challenged the impugned orders in so far as it relates to non award of interest and penalty, we are not called upon to go into that question at the instance of the petitioner. We thus leave this question open. In the light of foregoing discussion, we find no merit in this revision, which fails and is accordingly dismissed in limini. No cost.