1995 (5) TMI 258 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment orders quashing petition.
2. Barred appeal due to limitation.
3. Ex parte assessment proceedings.
4. Non-service of notices.
5. Opportunity to prove case.
6. Violation of natural justice.
7. Production of necessary declaration forms.
8. Support by Additional Advocate-General.
9. Setting aside of orders.
10. Revival of appeal.
11. Deposit of balance amount.
12. Dismissal of writ petition upon failure to deposit.
13. Decision on appeal within six months.
14. Refund in case of success.

Analysis:
The petitioner, an assessee, sought to quash the assessment orders dated March 29, 1991 (P-1), November 15, 1991 (P-2), and November 30, 1993 (P-3), related to the year 1987-88. The appeal filed against the initial order was dismissed by the appellate authority due to limitation. The petitioner then appealed to the Sales Tax Tribunal, which also dismissed the appeal. The petitioner argued that the notices were not served, leading to ex parte proceedings and a violation of natural justice. The counsel urged the court to allow the petitioner to prove the non-service of notices and produce necessary declaration forms that were not mentioned in the assessment. The Additional Advocate-General supported the impugned orders, claiming that the notice was served, although no definitive finding could be made without proper records.

The High Court set aside the orders of the appellate authority and the Sales Tax Tribunal, reviving the appeal before the appellate authority for disposal in accordance with the law. The petitioner was directed to deposit the balance amount by a specified date to proceed with the appeal. Failure to make the deposit would result in the dismissal of the writ petition. The appellate authority was instructed to decide on the appeal promptly, preferably within six months, and to issue a refund if the petitioner succeeded in the appeal.

Overall, the judgment focused on the procedural irregularities in the assessment process, the right to be heard, and the opportunity for the petitioner to present evidence in support of their case. The court emphasized the importance of following due process and ensuring a fair hearing for all parties involved in tax assessment disputes.