M/S.Sri Vijaya Fire Safety Products PVT.LTD vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax (Int.)

Held

The Court acknowledged that the petitioner had not been diligent in availing the opportunities provided by the 1st respondent and had also missed the statutory appeal remedy. However, considering the significant amount of Rs. 39,78,973 sought to be levied under the TVAT provisions, the Court decided to grant a conditional opportunity to the petitioner. The impugned Assessment Order dated January 18, 2019, was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the 2nd respondent. The condition for this relief was the deposit of 25% of the disputed amount within four weeks. The 2nd respondent was directed to permit the petitioner to file objections to the show-cause notice, consider them, and pass a reasoned order. The Court also stipulated that if the deposit was not made, the Writ Petition would stand dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, a dealer in fire safety equipment, is challenging an Assessment Order dated January 18, 2019, passed by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent audited the petitioner's accounts for the period April 2013 to June 2017 and issued a show-cause notice on November 5, 2018, proposing to reject input tax credit. Due to an accountant's mistake, objections were not filed on time. Subsequent notices were issued, and the petitioner requested further time to file objections, citing a festival. However, the petitioner forgot to file them, and the 1st respondent passed the assessment order before the petitioner could respond. The petitioner also failed to file an appeal within the time limit. The present Writ Petition seeks an opportunity to reply to the show-cause notice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to file objections to the show-cause notice dated November 5, 2018, despite missing previous opportunities and the appeal period being time-barred, considering the substantial amount in dispute? The petitioner argued that due to oversight and personal reasons, they could not file their objections in time and sought an opportunity to present their case. The respondents contended that multiple opportunities were provided to the petitioner, which were not availed, and therefore, no further indulgence should be granted. The respondents relied on the fact that the petitioner was not diligent in pursuing the available remedies.