Full News
Assessee couldn't retract admission of offence once it applied for compounding
Assessee couldn't retract admission of offence once it applied for compounding
Assessee filed application u/s-55 contending that intelligence officer wrongly quantified the compounding fee payable. Same was not maintainable as order of compounding passed u/s-74 was not an appealable order for purposes of section 55. Therefore, assessee could not have availed of appellate remedy against order of Intelligence Officer-007676
1. Covers section 42 of the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 - Assessment - Audit assessment - Period 1-4-2011 to 31-3-2013. 2. Deputy commisioner ordered sales tax officer to prepare an audit report on the basis of transactions mentioned in letter provided by DC. 3. As per the provided material STO prepared an audit report and submitted to DC. 4. On the basis of audit report DC passed the assessment order to assesse. 5. Later, Assesse claimed that the audit report was nothing but the outcome of influence and bias on part of Deputy Commissioner. 6. It was clear after the investigation firstly, that the DC was falsely the author of audit report and secondly, the report can be false beacuse STO himself haven't surveyed the trancactions. 7. Section 42 states that the deputy commissioner was not the author but only a part in audit process, therefore DC cannot conduct the audit assessment to assesse. 8. It was held in favour of assesse.
Case Reference- Trichur Auto Spares v. State of Kerala
[2015] 59 taxmann.com 313 (Kerala)
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
