VITRAG IMPEX Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. Hardik Vora, Learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the Learned Advocates for the respective parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) In the present writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the notices dated 13-11-2017 and 15-11-2017 relating to the assessment year 2012-13 issued by respondent No. 2 under Sec. 44 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") attaching the Current Account No. 01772000012366 of HDFC Bank, Jamnagar and Cash Credit Account No. 87390 of Punjab National Bank, Jamnagar. The petitioner is a proprietorship concern engaged in the business of trading in brass scrap and other similar items. During the course of assessment proceedings for the period 2012-13, show cause notice dated 26-12-2016 was issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Unit-99, Jamnagar calling upon him as to why the input tax credit may not be disallowed. Accordingly, the petitioner had participated in the assessment proceedings and filed his reply along with necessary documents. However, unimpressed by the submissions of the petitioner, the assessing authority passed assessment order dated 23-1-2017 disallowing the input tax credit to the tune of Rs. 28,76,541/- on the purchases made by the petitioner from various vendors. The same gave rise to differential tax dues of Rs. 28,04,841/- which were further coupled with interest of Rs. 19,27,767.00 imposed under Sec. 42(5) of the Act and composite penalty of 100% of Rs. 28.04,841/- imposed under Sections 34(7) and 34(12) of the Act. Thus, the total dues raised amounted to Rs. 75,37,449.00.

(3.) Aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment order, the petitioner approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 13207 of 2017. Vide order dated 4-8-2017, the petition was dismissed with observations that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the first appellate authority, and if the petitioner files such an appeal along with application for condonation of delay, on or before 18-8-2017, the appellate authority shall consider the same and decide the appeal on merits.