Assessee Should Be Given Opportunity To Produce Evidence Which Has Impact On Tax Liability: In Calcutta High Court
According to the Calcutta High Court bench, assessees should be given the chance to present evidence that could affect their tax liability.
In the case of Nipika Agarwal Proprietress of S.N. Trading Vs Asst. Commissioner of State Tax (MAT 15 of 2022), the division bench of Honorable Justice Debangsu Basak and Honorable Justice Bibhas Ranjan Dev stated that tax authorities must determine the tax liability in accordance with the law. Similar to this, the assessee should be given a reasonable opportunity to bring any relevant evidence to the attention of the tax authorities if they are unable to receive certain evidence that impacts the tax liability.
Facts of the case:
The order assessing the tax liability of the petitioner on May 3, 2021 has been contested by the petitioner/assessee. But later, the writ petitioner obtained the document dated August 25, 2021, which has an effect on the appellant/writ petitioner’s tax liability. The department claims that upon the revisional authority’s passing of its order, the determination of tax liability was finalized.
The petitioner/assessee claimed that the revisional authority issued the refund order on May 3, 2021. A Certificate of Export with a date of August 25, 2021 was subsequently given to the Assessee. The assessee’s receipt of the certificate was flawless and without error. The petitioner is entitled to a refund if the certificate is brought before the revisional authority. The certificate is important evidence that the revisional authority must take into account when determining the petitioner’s tax liability.
The petitioner argued that the tax authorities could not profit improperly from events outside the appellant’s control. The taxing authorities must actually credit the tax that was paid. The tax authorities should take notice of the document dated August 25, 2021 because it relates to the appellant’s tax liability. The appellant was denied tax benefits to which it would have otherwise been entitled.
Court’s Observation:
The appellant/writ petitioner was not in possession of any documents that they did not present to the revisional authority, the court stated, noting that this was not the case. Instead, it is a situation where the appellant/writ petitioner received a document after the revisional authority’s decision.
“We believe that the appellant/writ petitioner should be given another chance to present the document dated August 25, 2021 to the revisional authority. The appellant/writ petitioner is free to speak with the revisional authority about the order of assessment dated May 3, 2021 within a fortnight of this date. If so, it is requested that the revisional authority reconsider the refund decision it made, taking into account the legally required document dated August 25, 2021 “The judge stated.
PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.
Judgement Reviewed By Manju Molakalapalli.