M/S. Surakshita Security Force vs. The Additional Commissioner Of Central Taxes
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER
This petition is directed against the impugned order at Annexure – A dated 28.03.2023 whereby the rectification application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the respondent.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record
A perusal of the material on record will indicate that aggrieved by the endorsement dated 31.05.2022, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.12915/2022, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 08.09.2022 setting aside the endorsement and remitting the matter back to the respondent for reconsideration of the petitioner’s rectification application dated 20.04.2022 after providing an opportunity to the petitioner. In the said order, this Court further permitted the petitioner to produce additional pleadings, documents, etc., before the respondent and directed him to accept the same and proceed further in accordance with law.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the specific liberty reserved in favour of the petitioner to produce additional documents subsequent to this Court’s order and NC: 2024:KHC:3127 also directing the respondent to accept additional documents and proceed further, the petitioner submitted additional documents along with earlier documents and submitted written submissions, replies, etc., to the respondent. It is contended that despite specific directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.12915/2022 referred to supra directing respondent to reconsider the matter and also accept additional pleadings, documents, etc., submitted by the petitioner, respondent has not only not considered the earlier material on record but has also not considered additional pleadings and documents on the ground that the same was not permissible under Section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994 and proceeded to pass the impugned order, which is assailed in the present petition.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would support the impugned order and submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the respondent has not considered the additional documents submitted by the petitioner on the ground that the same were impermissible to be accepted in the light of the provisions contained under Section NC: 2024:KHC:3127 74 of the Finance Act, 1994. In this context, it is relevant to state that W.P.No.12915/2022, this Court passed the following order:
“7. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned endorsement at Annexure – A dated 31.05.2022 passed by the respondent, is hereby set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration of petitioner’s rectification application at Annexure – C dated 20.04.2022 afresh, in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. (iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to produce additional pleadings, documents, etc., before the respondent, who shall accept the same and proceed further in accordance with law.”
The aforesaid order passed by this Court has attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon the respondent. Subsequent to the petitioner’s representation to the respondent NC: 2024:KHC:3127 dated 08.02.2023, respondent submitted reply at Annexure – J dated 16.02.2023, which reads as under:
“Please refer to the record of personal hearing held on 08.02.2023 and the written submission dated 08.02.2023 filed in the course of personal hearing
On perusal of your written submissions it is observed that at para 3 of your written submissions dated 08.02.2023, you have informed as "...... with the Iimited time available from the date of providing access to the STC portal, assessee has been able to partly verify the records with their new auditor and accordingly, the following documents are submitted, which is not exhaustive.....” Further at para 4 of your written submissions dated 08.02.2023, you have informed as “Assessee has submitted work orders again with this representation……”.
In this regard, it is brought to your kind notice that in the course of personal hearing you have filed written submission dated 08.02.2023 in 10 pages i.e. page 1 to 10 only and the same is enclosed to this letter. Apart from this 10 pages written submissions, you have not furnished any documents. This is for your information and to avoid any confusion in the proceedings.”
After adopting the aforesaid stance, the respondent called upon the petitioner to produce the documents, pursuant to which the respondent clearly erred in refusing to accept the documents permitted to be produced and directed to be accepted NC: 2024:KHC:3127 by this Court as well as the documents produced the petitioner, which were specifically called for by the respondent.
Under these circumstances, without going into scope or ambit of Section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994, in the peculiar / special facts and circumstances of the instant case including the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.12915/2023 and stance of the respondent in issuing a notice dated 16.02.2023 calling upon the petitioner to produce additional documents, in my considered opinion, the respondent committed an error in refusing not only to look into the earlier documents but also additional documents for the purpose of considering the rectification application and consequently, the impugned order being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the material on record deserves to be quashed and matter once again deserves to be remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.
In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order at Annexure – A dated 28.03.2023 is hereby set aside. NC: 2024:KHC:3127 (iii) Matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for reconsideration of the rectification application dated 20.04.2022 afresh, in accordance with law. (iv) In the peculiar / special facts and circumstances of the instant case and without expressing any opinion on the scope and ambit of Section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994, I deem it just and appropriate to hereby direct the respondent to consider the entire material on record available before him as on today, including the pleadings, documents, additional documents produced by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders on the rectification application, including the documents produced along with Annexures – H, K and L by the petitioner, in accordance with law. (v) It is made clear that the present order is passed in the peculiar / special facts and circumstance of the instant case and same shall not to be treated as precedent and shall not have any precedential value under any circumstance whatsoever. JUDGE SV; List No.: 2 Sl No.: 13
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.