AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prakash Shrivastava, J.—This order will also govern the disposal of W. P. Nos. 9280 of 2011, 9282 of 2011, 9284 of 2011, 9286 of 2011 and 9289 of 2011. In these writ petitions the petitioner has challenged the order, annexure P1, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Indore Division 2, Indore, imposing penalty u/s 69 of the Madhya Pradesh Vanijya Kar Adhiniyam, 1994. The petitioner has also challenged the consequential recovery notice. Since the orders under challenge are similar in nature in respect of the same assessee, therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.
The assessment periods involved in these writ petitions are as under :
Writ Petition Number
Assessment Period
9277/2011
1/4/2005 to 31/3/2006
9280/2011
1/4/2004 to 31/3/2005
9282/2011
1/4/1998 to 31/3/1999
9284/2011
1/4/1999 to 31/3/2000
9286/2011
1/4/2000 to 31/3/2001
9289/2011
1/4/2001 to 31/3/2002
In brief the petitioner who is a registered dealer purchases crude oil from other registered dealers as also imports it from outside the State of Madhya Pradesh and after refining it a substantial quantity of the oil is dispatched by the petitioner, out of the State of Madhya Pradesh by way of sale in the course of inter-State trade and commerce. For the relevant assessment periods, the petitioner had claimed that it was not liable to pay entry tax on the ground that the process of refining of oil is excluded from the definition of "manufacture" but the said plea of the petitioner was not accepted by the assessing authority. The assessing authority had framed the assessment and had also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 69 of the Act by issuing notice to the petitioner. The petitioner had filed a reply to the show-cause notice and the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Indore-Division 2, had passed the impugned orders imposing the penalty u/s 69 of the Act.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Assistant Commissioner has not considered the reply to the show-cause notice filed by the petitioner and has passed a cryptic orders imposing the penalty in the mechanical manner.
The learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned orders.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on the perusal of the record, we have noticed that while passing the impugned orders, the Assistant Commissioner has not assigned any reason for imposing the penalty except observing that the explanation of the dealer is not in accordance with law. The impugned orders indicate that the reply to the show-cause notice which was filed by the petitioner and the explanation submitted by him has not been considered by the Assistant Commissioner in proper perspective. The impugned orders suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, non-assigning of reasons and appears to have been passed in a mechanical manner. The impugned orders in all the writ petitions are similarly worded and they suffer from same illegality. The Assistant Commissioner was required to examine that the requisite conditions contained in section 69 are satisfied before imposing the penalty and was also required to consider the explanation furnished by the petitioner which he has failed to do.
In view of the above, the impugned orders (annexure P1) cannot be sustained and are set aside. The Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, is directed to consider the matter afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner will be at liberty to raise all such grounds before the Assistant Commissioner as permissible in law and the Assistant Commissioner will pass fresh reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.
The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. The original order be kept in the file of W. P. No. 9277 of 2011 and copy thereof be placed in the file of other connected writ petitions.