Saumitra Dayal Singh, J. - (1.) The present revision has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 14.08.2018 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Meerut in Second Appeal No.141 of 2018 for A.Y. 2014-15 arising from an assessment made under Section 28(2)(ii) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). By that order, the Tribunal rejected the second appeal filed by the assessee and affirmed the first appellate order and the assessment order whereby the assessee was subjected to assessment to tax on a total turnover of Rs. 2,25,00,000/-. A total demand of tax Rs. 21,56,000/- was created of which Rs.19,42,326/- is the demand of disputed tax.
(2.) During the assessment year in question, the assessee - a registered dealer was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of sweetmeats and bakery items. It filed its periodic returns for the relevant tax periods. Also, it filed its annual return on 28.12.2015, in the prescribed manner. In that regard, it has been clarified, though the last date for filing the annual return prescribed under Rule 45(7) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) was 30.10.2015, the same had been extended up to 31.12.2015. On 19.03.2017, a notice was issued to the assessee under Rule 45(13)(a) of the Rules. It alleged that the annual return filed by the assessee was incomplete. Other defects had also been noted in that notice. The assessee was directed to file its revised return within a period of 15 days, as contemplated under that Rule.
(3.) The assessee did not file reply to the said notice. In fact, since the notice dated 19 March, 2017 had been first served on the assessee on 20 March, 2017, it was claimed to be an invalid exercise of power since the period contemplated under Section 27(2)(b) of the Act expired on 31 March 2017, before the end of 15 days mandatory time period (that was also granted by the assessing authority to the assessee to file its revised return). In other words, before expiry of 15 days time under the notice dated 19.03.2017, an order of deemed assessment was claimed to have into existence, on 31 March, 2017. Later, on 27.02.2018 another notice was issued by the assessing authority of the assessee under Section 28 of the Act, stating that the return filed by the assessee for the A.Y. 2014-15 was incomplete and that the assessee had not filed its revised return despite service of notice under Rule 45(13) of the Rules. Accordingly, the assessee was required to participate in those assessment proceedings. The assessee filed a specific objection as to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority to proceed under Section 28 of the Act. The assessee also appears to have furnished reply on merits. Further notices were also issued to him, thereafter. However, it is a fact that the assessee did not fully participate in the assessment proceedings. Finally, an ex parte assessment order was passed against him on 31 March, 2018. In the first appeal filed by the assessee therefrom, the assessee appears to have only raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction with the Assessing Authority to pass an assessment under Section 28 of the Act. That objection was rejected. In the further appeal to the Tribunal, again, the assessee appears to have raised solitary issue of lack of jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority. It was again rejected by the Tribunal, by the impugned order.;