Gulab Chand and Ajay Kumar Jain vs Assessing Commercial Tax Officer and Others

Prakash Shrivastava, J.—Heard on the question of admission. This order will also govern the disposal of VAT Appeal No. 7 of 2012 and VAT Appeal No. 8 of 2012 since these appeals have been filed against the common order of the M.P. Commercial Tax Appellate Board dated January 16, 2012 passed in the appeals under the Central Sales Tax Act, VAT Act as well as the Entry Tax Act, on the same grounds.

The facts in brief are that the appellant is a dealer engaged in the sale and purchase of agricultural produce. The assessment proceedings were initiated against the appellant in respect of the liability under the VAT Act, Central Sales Tax Act as well as the Entry Tax Act and during the assessment proceedings the appellant had failed to appear and since it was found that the appellant had submitted incorrect returns, therefore, the best judgment assessment was done. The appellant had preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the appellate authority, against which the appellant had preferred second appeal which has been dismissed by the Appellate Board by the common order dated January 16, 2012.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the assessment orders have been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice without giving any opportunity to the appellant and that the orders of assessment are non-speaking cryptic orders, whereas the counsel for the respondents has supported the orders passed by the assessing as well as the appellate authority.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on the perusal of the record, we find that the allegation of the appellant that the assessment order has been passed without giving an opportunity to the appellant is not correct. The appellant was given proper opportunity of hearing before the assessing authority and he was also called by the assessing authority to verify the information relating to sale and purchase which was collected, but the appellant had failed to appear before the assessing authority, therefore, the best judgment assessment was done. The appellant has placed reliance upon the medical certificate (annexure A/4) in support of his submission that the appellant was unwell, therefore, he could not appear before the assessing officer, but a perusal of the said medical certificate does not inspire confidence since the medical certificate was issued on December 2, 2009 stating about illness of the appellant six months back from June 20, 2009 to June 30, 2009. The said certificate has already been considered by the Appellate Board. It is also worth noting that the first appeal remained pending before the appellate authority for about an year but the appellant had failed to produce any material in support of his case. Even during the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Board no cogent material was produced by the appellant, therefore, the submission of the appellant at this stage that he was not given proper opportunity of hearing, cannot be accepted. The record also indicates that the orders passed by the assessing authority, the first appellate authority as well as the Appellate Board are well reasoned orders.

In these circumstances we are of the opinion that no question of law arises for consideration of this court. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. Signed order be kept in the file of VAT Appeal No. 6 of 2012 and a copy whereof be kept in the file of VAT Appeal No. 7 of 2012 and VAT Appeal No. 8 of 2012.