Page 191 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

2020 ] RAJESH v. STATE OF HARYANA 93
same, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit)-5.5 has passed the
ex parte re-assessment order. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Ex facie it appears that the assignment note issued to the DCCT (Au-
dit)-5.2 relating to the tax periods 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 has been considered
to be the assignment issued even to the tax period 2012-2013, by the said authori-
ty resulting in issuance of reassessment notice to reassess the assessee under the
provisions of the Act for the tax period 2012-13. On the reply filed by the peti-
tioner to the notice issued by the DCCT (Audit-5.5), an endorsement dated 14-12-
2016 has been issued by the said authority - DCCT (Audit)-5.5) bringing these
aspects to the notice of the petitioner, more particularly, the assessment under
VAT and GST tax period 2012-2013 being assigned to the DCCT (Audit)-5.5,
Bengaluru. The jurisdiction of the officers to proceed with the reassessment relat-
ing to the tax period 2012-2013 was not clear amongst the concerned authorities.
The ex parte reassessment order now impugned certainly deserves to be set aside
for the reason that assessee had appeared before DCCT (Audit)-5.2, Bengaluru,
pursuant to the reassessment notice issued by the said authority relating to the
tax period in question, if that be the position, the DCCT (Audit)-5.2 ought to have
transferred the proceedings initiated by him to the competent authority, assigned
with the jurisdiction. That having not been done, the petitioner is made to suffer.
4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, this Court deems it
appropriate to set aside the order impugned at Annexure-E dated 20-2-2018 as
well as the Demand Notice at Annexure-F dated 3-10-2018 relating to the tax pe-
riod 2012-2013 and remit the proceedings to the respondent No. 2 DCCT (Audit)-
5.5, Bengaluru, to redo the assessment after providing an opportunity of hearing
to the petitioner and ordered accordingly.
5. The petitioner is permitted to appear before the respondent No. 2 on
5-8-2019 along with the reply/objections to the re-assessment notice issued by
the respondent No. 2 and thereafter, respondent No. 2 shall conclude the re-
assessment in accordance with law in an expedite manner.
6. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

_______

2020 (35) G.S.T.L. 93 (P & H)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Gurvinder Singh Gill, J.
RAJESH
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA
CRM-M No. 40312 of 2019(O&M) and CRM-M Nos. 250 & 5051 of 2020(O&M),
decided on 25-2-2020
Bail - Petitioner played pivotal role in the entire scam for the purpose
of incorporating 18 different firms wherein in a majority of the firms, his
e-mail ID or phone number used - Bank transactions of huge amount effected
in the account of Ansh Hospitality as well as Shree Bala Ji Wooltax - Owners
of these firms viz. Manish and Inder Pratap Singh unable to furnish any justi-
GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  255