M/s. Yogesh Trading Company Versus The Assistant Commissioner, State Goods & Service Tax Department, Kasaragod, State of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram, The Kerala Agricultural Income Tax And Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal And The Intelligence Officer (IB) -II, Thiruvananthapuram – 2018 (3) TMI 978 – KERALA HIGH COURT – 2018 (361) E.L.T. 977 (Ker.) – Validity of assessment order – smuggling – the challenge against Exts.P1 and P2 notices is on the ground that the same are issued without complying with the directions issued by the Appellate Tribunal in Ext.P3 order and this Court in Ext.P8 judgment.
–
Held that: – Since it was contended by the petitioner in the appeals and second appeals preferred against the assessment orders that proper enquiry was not conducted by the competent authority before making huge additions on that ground in their turnover, the Appellate Tribunal ordered the assessing authority to pass fresh orders after conducting an independent enquiry. It is seen that later
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e said statutes for the year 2002- 03 were initially completed by the competent authority treating the inter-state sales turnover of rubber sheets declared by the petitioner at their branch at Karike in the State of Karnataka as purchases effected in the State for levy of tax holding that the rubber sheets involved in the said transactions are those smuggled from the State. The petitioner though challenged the said assessment orders in appeal, the appellate authority affirmed the assessments. However, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the further appeals preferred by the petitioner challenging the orders of the appellate authority and remitted the matter for fresh consideration in terms of Ext.P3 order, after conducting an independent enquiry as regards the alleged smuggling. 2. Thereupon, when notice was issued to the petitioner for completing the assessments, the petitioner preferred Ext.P5 representation requesting the competent authority to provide them the report of the enquiry condu
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
roposed to rely on for the purpose of completing the assessments will be served on the petitioner. 3. It is seen that notices were issued to the petitioner by the assessing authority on various occasions thereafter and all along the petitioner was contending that the directions issued by this Court in terms of Ext.P8 judgment have not been complied with by the assessing authority. Exts.P1 and P2 are the latest among the notices issued by the assessing authority for the said purpose and the said notices are under challenge in the writ petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader. 5. In essence, the challenge against Exts.P1 and P2 notices is on the ground that the same are issued without complying with the directions issued by the Appellate Tribunal in Ext.P3 order and this Court in Ext.P8 judgment. As noted above, additions were made to the turnover of the petitioner on the ground that the interstate sales turnover disclosed by the pe
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
llenge the assessment orders on that ground before the appellate authority. At every stage of the assessment process, the petitioner cannot approach this Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution pointing out violations if any, in the directions, or infractions of the statutory provisions. If assessment orders are issued without compliance of the directions issued by the Tribunal in Ext.P3 order and this Court in Ext.P8 judgment, the same would be a ground available to the petitioner to challenge the assessment orders. It is relevant to note in this connection that the subject matter of this case pertains to the assessments of the petitioner for the year 2002-03. The materials on record indicate beyond doubt that the petitioner could successfully drag the assessment proceedings for about fifteen years by instituting one or other proceedings. This writ petition, according to me, is yet another attempt on the part of the petitioner to prolong the assessment proceedings. The writ pet
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =