1997 (10) TMI 374 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Impugned revised assessment order for the period 1982-83 and consequential notice of demand.
2. Allegation of revised assessment order based solely on audit report without further inquiry.
3. Dispute regarding relief granted by the superior authority and subsequent demand amount.
4. Allegation of violation of natural justice in passing the impugned order.
5. Delay in challenging the impugned order and argument of laches.
6. Review of assessment order and sanction by the assessing authority.
7. Failure to appear before the authority on the date fixed for hearing.
8. Argument for setting aside the impugned order based on violation of natural justice.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the revised assessment order for the period 1982-83 and the consequential notice of demand, alleging that the assessment was based solely on an audit report without further inquiry. The petitioner contended that the assessing officer erred in not considering the relief granted by a superior authority, leading to discrepancies in the demand amount. Moreover, the petitioner argued that the impugned order violated the principle of natural justice by not providing a reasonable opportunity to be heard as required by the Bihar Finance Act, 1981.

The respondents, however, justified the impugned order by pointing out that the petitioner failed to exhaust internal statutory remedies before moving the Court, and raised the issue of delay in challenging the order. The counter-affidavit provided a detailed account of the assessment process, including remands and revisions, emphasizing that the assessing authority followed due process and obtained necessary sanctions for the review of the assessment order.

The Court noted that the petitioner did not appear before the authority on the scheduled date for the hearing, rendering the argument of violation of natural justice unsustainable. Citing precedents, the Court emphasized that statutory remedies should not be bypassed through writ applications. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ application without costs, upholding the impugned order and emphasizing the importance of following statutory procedures in challenging tax assessments.