WPMS/621/2019 of M/S S.R.F. LIMITED Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPMS No.621 of 2019

Hon’ble Alok Singh, J.

Mr. S. K. Posti, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Addl. C.S.C. with Mr. M. S. Bisht, Brief Holder for the State. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner seeks to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining/ prohibiting the Deputy Commissioner (Assessment)-I (Shaganj), State Tax Kashipur, U. S. Nagar-respondent no.3 from taking any proceedings in pursuance of notice dated 21.02.2019 and quashing the order dated 13.02.2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Kashipur Zone, U. S. Nagar for the assessment year 2012-2013 and consequential notice dated 21.02.2019.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is carrying on business of manufacturing and sale of plastics, plastic granules and plastic chips; the assessing authority passed an assessment order dated 30.05.2015 for the assessment year 2012-2013 and levied tax under entry 83 of Schedule II(B) of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005; thereafter, the assessing authority, all of sudden, issued notice on 25.09.2018 under Section 29(4) of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005, by which, the respondent authority wants to reopen the assessment; pursuant to this, the petitioner has filed its reply on 01.12.2018; the Additional Commissioner issued show cause notice to the petitioner on 01.01.2019 as to why permission be not grant for re-assessment; and the petitioner filed its reply before the Additional Commissioner/respondent no.2 reiterating the grounds, which were taken by him before the assessing authority.

After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the reply submitted by the petitioner was not properly considered. Perusal of the impugned orders reveal that they were passed without assigning any reasons and the reply submitted by the petitioner has not been dealt with appropriately. Therefore, the impugned orders do not sustain in the eyes of law.

In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are hereby quashed. The Additional Commissioner (Commercial Tax) is directed to deal with all the points of the petitioner made in the reply and only then, to pass fresh order, in accordance with law.

Dated 08.03.2019

Rawat

(Alok Singh, J.)