Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 44 (JK)

Prem Sweet Shop, Kud, Udhampur v. Dy. Commissioner, CT (A), Jammu

2014-02-07

Kossar Ahmad Qureshi

body2014
ORDER 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under section 73 of the J&K VAT Act 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act in short) against order dated 17-04-2012 passed by the Dy. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Appeals) Appellate Authority, Jammu (hereinafter referred as the Appellate Authority in short) in an appeal under section 72 of the Act set aside the order dated 31-03-2010 passed by the Assessing Authority, Commercial Taxes, Circle-Udhampur-l (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Authority in short) under section 39 of the Act in which Assessing Authority has enhanced the turnover of the appellant from Rs. 1,67,54,00/- to Rs. 2,41,41,00/-. 2. The brief facts of the case are that appellant deals in sale and purchase of sweets, who is registered dealer under the Act. The Ld. Assessing Authority has raised the assessment against the appellant under section 39 of the Act for the accounting year 2006-07. While passing the order the Ld. Assessing Authority enhanced the turnover of the appellant from Rs. 1675400/- to Rs 2414100/- on the ground that the purchase of Desi Ghee used by the appellant does not commensurate with the sales reflected by the appellant in trading account for the account period 2006-07. The Ld. Assessing Authority therefore created the demand of Rs. 162199.79(94457.79+66120+1622) on account of tax, interest and penalty respectively. 3. The appellant challenged the assessment order passed by the Assessing Authority before the Ld. Appellate Authority. The Ld. Appellate Authority has set aside the case and remanded back to Assessing Authority. 4. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have given anxious consideration to the matter. 5. The counsel for respondents Mr. Amit Gupta has pleaded that the order passed by the Appellate Authority is in consonance with law which do not call any interference. 6. The Ld. Counsel for appellant during the course of hearing urged that the Ld. Appellate Authority has not been justified in setting aside the case to the Assessing Authority in view of the admitted fact that assessment order passed by the Ld. Assessing Authority does not pass the test of law. The remanding case back to the Ld. Assessing Authority as the same will cause the multiplicity of litigation. The order should have been quashed. 7. The contention of Ld. Assessing Authority does not pass the test of law. The remanding case back to the Ld. Assessing Authority as the same will cause the multiplicity of litigation. The order should have been quashed. 7. The contention of Ld. Counsel for the appellant only was instead of setting aside the assessment order and allowing the denovo assessment, it should have quashed the assessment order as it was found bad in law. Argument of Ld. Counsel is devoid of merit. The annulment would have tentamount to giving a opportunity to appellant to the escape tax liability. Such course is not permissible in law. 8. Viewed thus no ground has been made out warranting interference in the impugned order. Resultantly appeal being without any merit, it is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. The Assessing Authority shall proceed to make a denovo assessment for relevant year forthwith in the light of observations made by Ld. Appellate Authority. The authorities below be informed. Record, summoned, if any be returned forthwith. Stay, if any, granted earlier is hereby vacated. File shall be consigned to records after its due completion.