FOUSIA MUHAMMED Vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT is the writ petitioner. The writ petition was filed calling in question Exts.P3 and P3(a) passed by the second respondent. Exts.P3 and P3(a) are orders of assessment for the assessment years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 under Section 17D of the KGST Act. The case of the appellant was that the turnover of the appellant was covered by C forms. Appellant produced C forms for which the appellant was given the benefit of concessional rate of tax. But, for the entire turnover, the appellant was not able to produce C forms for the same. Naturally, the Officer denied the benefit of concessional rate of assessment. It is feeling aggrieved by the same, that the appellant approached this Court.

(2.) THE learned Single Judge took the view that the assessment orders were passed on 16.8.2010 and 31.12.2010 and they were served on the appellant immediately thereafter. It is further found that the appellant has no case that C forms were not available or obtained at the time of assessment, before completion of the assessment orders. It was in such circumstances the assessment was completed. It is further stated that the period specified in the Act for filing the Appeal is also expired and that at this distance, the appellant seeks to reopen the issue. The reliance placed by the appellant on the Judgment of the Apex Court in State of H.P. and Others v. Gujarat Ambuja (142 STC 1) was found to be misplaced and the writ petition was disposed of, noting that the learned Single Judge is not inclined to pass any order as sought for.

(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was able to procure C forms in respect of most of the inter-State sales. The appellant was trying to obtain C forms from the purchasers. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant has now able to obtain C forms for the balance turnover as evident by Exts.P4 and P5. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that C forms can be allowed to be produced even after the assessment is over and it is essentially directory. In the circumstances of the case, he submits that though it is true that the appellant was afforded opportunity by the assessing officer, in the interest of justice, the appellant may not be denied justice. Learned Government Pleader would point out that actually a perusal of the assessment order would show that time was granted by the Officer and it cannot be described as an arbitrary order.