Patna High CourtCWJC/13117/2016allowed

M/S City Bricks v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-09-06Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah,Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13117 of 2016 =========================================================== M/s City Bricks through its Proprietor, Taqui Ahmad Rahmani, Son of Anisur Rahman, resident of village - Ratanpura, P.S. Maro, District - Darbhanga .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Commercial Taxes Department, Bihar

2. The Principal Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

3. The Deputy Commissioner Commercial Taxes, Darbhanga Circle, Darbhanga

4. The Commercial Tax Officer, Darbhanga Circle, Darbhanga .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Chandra, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anurag Saurav, A.C. to S.C. 2 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA) Date: 06-09-2016 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The challenge in the present writ application is to an order dated 30th of June, 2015 whereby, a sum of Rs. 2,67,250/- was demanded from the petitioner towards the balance amount of Value Added Tax.

3. The stand of the petitioner is that such demand was raised without serving any notice upon the petitioner, as required under Section 31(1) of the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short "the Act") for the Assessment Year 2014-15.

Patna High Court CWJC No.13117 of 2016 dt.06-09-2016 2/3

4. In the counter affidavit filed, the State relies upon notice dated 19th of June, 2015 (Annexure-E) issued to the petitioner with date of hearing as 25th of June, 2015. Said notice is said to be issued to the petitioner under ordinary post.

5. To support that the notice has been sent under ordinary post, a photo copy of the Dispatch Register has been attached which shows that Notice Nos. 1676, 1677 and 1678 were addressed to the petitioner and sent under post with Postal Stamp of Rs. 5/- each.

6. A perusal of the record shows that the demand notice pursuant to order dated 30th of June, 2015 was served upon the petitioner vide Registered A.D. Post. If a demand notice can be sent under Registered Post then the question is that why not a notice for framing assessment under Section 31(1) of the Act can be issued under Registered Post.

7. We have serious reservation about the manner of serving notice by way of ordinary post when proceedings under Section 31 have adverse consequences upon a person. We find that there is no poof of issuance of notice to the petitioner. Therefore, we find it difficult to return a finding that notice was served upon the petitioner.

8. In view thereof, the writ application is allowed, impugned order dated 30th of June, 2015, the Demand Notice dated

Patna High Court CWJC No.13117 of 2016 dt.06-09-2016 3/3 30th of June, 2015 are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer to proceed afresh with the matter in accordance with law. It is made clear that no fresh notice is required to be issued to the petitioner and that petitioner shall present himself before the Assessing Officer concerned on 26th of September, 2016 at 11:00 A.M. with a reply and relevant documents whereupon the concerned Assessing Officer shall proceed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law.

(Hemant Gupta, J) (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J) P.K.P.

N.A.F.R.