ORDER : Vivek Rusia, J. These Value Added Tax Appeals have been filed under Section 53 of the Madhya Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (in short 'M.P. VAT Act') & Section 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Sthaniya Kshetra Mein Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam, 1976 (in short 'M.P. Entry Tax Act') challenging the common order dated 19.03.2021 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Appellate Board, Bhopal Bench at Indore in Appeal Nos.A/13/CTAB/IND/18 & A/14/CT/AB/IND/18, whereby the appeals have been dismissed. APPELLANTS’S CASE IN BRIEF 2. The appellant is a proprietorship concern registered under the provisions of M.P. VAT Act, 2002 as well as the M.P. Entry Tax Act engaged in the business of manufacturing steel furniture and trading in hardware items, iron bars and iron sheets. 2.1. On 27.01.2015, a search and inspection operation were carried out by the investigation wing of the Commercial Tax Department at the business premises and residential premises of the appellant under Section 55 of the VAT Act. The purpose of the search was to scrutinize the books of account and to verify the physical stock of goods maintained by the appellant. 2.2. During the course of inspection, various books of accounts, loose sheets, registers and documents were seized and impounded by the authorities under section 55(4) of the VAT Act. A seizure memo was prepared, and statements were recorded at the time of seizure. 2.3. Pursuant to the said search and seizure, relying on the loose papers and impounded documents the investigating team prepared scrutiny reports dated 21.07.2015 and 23.07.2017 and forwarded them to the jurisdictional assessing officer for initiation of block assessment proceedings under Section 55A of the VAT Act read with the Entry Tax Act. 2.4. The appellant repeatedly requested for supply orally for copies of the scrutiny reports as well as the loose papers which formed the basis of the allegations. However, these documents were never furnished to the appellant at any stage. 2.5. The Assessing Officer issued a notice on 28.11.2015 under Section 55A proposing to conduct a block assessment for the period 01.04.2014 to 27.01.2015 and assessment proceedings were thereafter conducted but without supplying the scrutiny reports or confronting the appellant with the alleged discrepancies. 2.6. Ultimately vide order dated 03.11.2016, the Assessing Officer passed an ex-parte block assessment order imposing consequential tax liability. 2.6. Ultimately vide order dated 03.11.2016, the Assessing Officer passed an ex-parte block assessment order imposing consequential tax liability. In VATA No. 31 of 2021, the concealed sales were determined at Rs.22,57,252/- and a VAT of Rs.1,61,823/- was levied primarily on the basis of a stock differences found during inspection and treated as suppressed sales. In VATA No. 32 of 2021 on the basis of concealed purchases amounting to Rs.19,03,779/- entry tax of Rs.24,730/- was imposed and a corresponding notice of demand was directed to be issued. In both these cases, penalty proceedings under Section 52 were separately initiated on the respective assessed tax amounts. 2.7. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer the appellant preferred two first appeals bearing Nos.178/BPR/2016 & 90/BPR/2016 before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Tax, Khandwa. In the grounds of appeal, the appellant specifically assailed the assessment orders on the ground of gross violation of the principles of natural justice, contending that the entire assessment had been based on scrutiny reports that were never supplied and that no opportunity of rebuttal, reply or cross-examination had been granted. 2.8. The learned appellate authority however vide order dated 31.08.2017 summarily dismissed the appeals without entering into the merits of the case on the ground of delay and held that the appeal was time barred. 2.9. Aggrieved by the first appellate order, the appellant approached the Commercial Tax Appellate Board by way of second appeal and further filed detailed written submissions before the appellate board reiterating the factual and legal errors in the assessment orders including the lack of supply of incriminating documents, non-compliance with natural justice, improper stock valuation and absence of any valid basis for the enhancement of turnover or tax liability. 2.10. The learned counsel of appellant also contended that the stock discrepancies were due to unrecorded transactions. Several judicial precedents were cited in support of the plea for remand of the case. The Department in response submitted that the appellant was granted sufficient opportunity during assessment and appellate proceedings but failed to avail the same and that the appellant had not produced any material to rebut the findings or substantiate their claims in any stage. 2.11. Several judicial precedents were cited in support of the plea for remand of the case. The Department in response submitted that the appellant was granted sufficient opportunity during assessment and appellate proceedings but failed to avail the same and that the appellant had not produced any material to rebut the findings or substantiate their claims in any stage. 2.11. Upon consideration of the record and submissions, the learned Board has observed that assessment was conducted under Section 55-A of the VAT Act based on material found during inspection and despite issuance of multiple notices, the appellant did not appear during the assessment or appellate proceedings and failed to present any documentary evidence. 2.12. The board further observed that nearly six years had elapsed since the assessment and that the appellants repeated failure to cooperate with the authorities is indicative of negligence and absence of bonafide. The board ultimately dismissed the second appeals observing that no ground for remand or further indulgence is made out and since no procedural infirmity or legal ground is made out no interference is required with the assessment or appellate orders. 2.13. Aggrieved by the above orders, the appellant has now approached this court under Section 53 of the VAT Act raising substantial questions of law and seeking setting aside of the appellate order. 2.14. The appellant has proposed following substantial questions of law:- (a) Whether the order dated 19/03/2021 passed by the M.P. Commercial Tax Appellate Board is perverse with regard to non-consideration of the material on record and non- examination of the issues involved in the instant case in their true perspective since the impugned order has been passed without any concrete basis or logical reasoning and wihtout considering or evaluation and accepting the explanation and evidences offered by the appellant / assessee with judicial matrix and thus the impugned order suffers from infirmities, is bad in law and is, therefore, liable to be set aside ? (b) Whether the Appellate Board was justified in confirming the lower authorities order wherein the impugned enhancement to turnover was made by relying on a scrutiny report dated 21/07/2015 & 23/07/2015 prepared without giving any opportunity of hearing and without confronting the Appellant with the said report and thus passing orders in utter disregard to the principles of natural justice and fair play ? (c) Whether the respondent authorities was justified in not following the Basic Principles of Natural Justice that all the incriminating documents / scrutiny report which are sought to be used against the Appellant dealer should be made available to the dealer in order to enable it to exercise its legal opportunity to challenge the same ? (d) Whether the impugned order passed by respondent authority is contrary to the judicial principle laid by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Chand Chellaram Vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) and in case Andman Timber Industries in Civil Appeal No.4228 of 2006 (2015) 324 E.L.T. 641 (SC) and by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Speed Automobiles Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Indore (2003) 1 STJ 427 (MP) which clearly says that all the incriminating documents/scrutiny report which are sought to be used against a dealer should be made available to such dealer so that he can reasonably meet the challenge ? SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANTS 3. Shri Gagan Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order dated 19.03.2021 is vitiated by breach of the principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel submitted that the foundation of the assessment being the scrutiny reports dated 21.07.2015 and 23.07.2015 was never supplied to the appellant despite repeated oral requests at the stage of assessment, first appeal and before the board. Learned counsel further submitted that without confronting the dealer with the scrutiny material relied upon and in the absence of any opportunity to rebut or cross-examine the assessment proceedings is fundamentally flawed. 4. Learned counsel further submitted that the Assessing Officer passed the order ex parte without granting effective opportunity of hearing and without examining the explanation or regular books of account. The turnover enhancement of Rs. 22,57,252/- including a major component of Rs. 18,67,732/- on account of alleged stock shortage is stated to be based on a valuation exercise that was wholly unreliable having been conducted hurriedly without adherence to accounting norms or verification of purchase invoices. Learned counsel also submitted that the impugned scrutiny report was prepared behind the back of the appellant and that no effort was made by the authorities to reconcile the alleged discrepancies with the records of the appellants. 5. Learned counsel also submitted that the impugned scrutiny report was prepared behind the back of the appellant and that no effort was made by the authorities to reconcile the alleged discrepancies with the records of the appellants. 5. Learned counsel placed reliance on Hon’ble Apex Court in Kishinchand Chellaram v/s CIT reported in (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) , Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v/s CIT reported in (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) , M.L. Lodha International, Ratlam v/s Commissioner of Commercial Tax [Writ Petition No. 5087 of 1996 (MP)] and Speed Automobiles Limited & Another v/s Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax & Others reported in (2003) 1 STJ 427 (MP). 6. Learned counsel also relied on M/s Shanti Furniture World & Another v/s Commercial Tax Officer in Appeal No. A- 09/CTAB/IND/18 (VAT) involving a similarly situated dealer inspected on the same date wherein the additions were set aside on account of similar procedural lapses and further submitted that parity of treatment and consistency of approach demand that the present matter also be decided in line with said decision. Learned counsel thus prayed that the impugned orders be quashed. SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENTS 7. Shri Sudeep Bhargava, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the assessment orders impugned herein were passed after following due process and within the bounds of statutory authority conferred on the concerned officer. Learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the appellant had been issued notice and afforded adequate opportunity to participate in the proceedings but failed to avail the same or produce any material to oppose the basis of the proposed additions. 8. Learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the principles of natural justice do not require supply of every internal departmental document and that the assessment need not be invalidated merely because the scrutiny report was not furnished separately especially when the material facts and basis of assessment stood adequately disclosed. 9. Learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the findings recorded by the assessing officer were duly affirmed by the appellate board and both authorities after having exercised their jurisdiction properly and prayed that the appeals be dismissed as there is no procedural irregularity so as to warrant interference under Section 53 of the VAT Act. APPRECIATION & CONCLUSION 10. The main argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that there is a violation of principle of natural justice. APPRECIATION & CONCLUSION 10. The main argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that there is a violation of principle of natural justice. The Assessing Authority in its order dated 03.11.2016 clearly observed that the appellant was given various opportunity to submit its defence, but neither he nor any Tax Consultant appeared on his behalf. Therefore, the appellant cannot allege the violation of principle of natural justice. Before the Appellate Board also, Shri Umesh Goyal appeared on behalf of the appellant and sought time to produce the documents, but he did not turn up, therefore, the Appellate Board had no option but to dismiss the appeal. It is a case where sufficient opportunity was afforded to the appellant at all the stage and it failed to avail the same. We do not find any substantial questions of law involved in these appeals. 11. Even otherwise, the tax effect of this appeal is on lower side i.e. Rs.1,61,823/ & Rs.24,730/-, Hence, we do not find any ground to entertain these appeals. 12. In view of the above, both the Value Added Tax Appeals stand dismissed. Let a photocopy of this order be kept in the connected writ appeal also.