DAYA RAM AND COMPANY Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, in this appeal filed under Section 36 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act') against the order passed by the Haryana Tax Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'The Tribunal') in STA No. 932 of 2010-11 dated 13.10.2011, has claimed that the following substantial questions of law would arise for determination:-

(2.) Briefly, the facts as narrated in the appeal, may be noticed. The appellant-dealer is a proprietorship concern registered under the Act and carrying on business in District Bhiwani. For assessment year 2006-07, the appellant had filed the quarterly returns and deposited the tax due. On the basis of information received by the Assessing Authority that certain sales had been made to Municipal Committee, the Assessing Authority initiated the assessment proceedings and vide order dated 29.03.2012, which was passed ex parte, had created a demand of Rs. 1,46,785/- by making additions to the gross turnover. The Assessing Authority had also recorded that penalty proceedings be initiated under Section 38 of the Act for which notice in Form N-3 be issued to the dealer for 20.04.2010.

(3.) None appeared on behalf of the appellant on 20.04.2010. The Assessing Authority, vide ex parte penalty order dated 20.04.2010 (Annexure P-2), levied a penalty of Rs. 2,69,956/- which was impugned by the dealer before the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Rohtak on the ground that the order imposing penalty under Section 38 of the Act was without affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellant as no notice had been served upon it. The said appeal having been rejected, second appeal was carried to the Tribunal, which was dismissed vide order impugned herein dated 13.10.2011. This has necessitated the appellant to approach this Court claiming determination of substantial questions of law, as noticed above.