1994 (4) TMI 379 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of reassessment proceedings based on audit report
2. Whether reassessment proceedings are barred by limitation

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, an assessee to sales tax, challenged reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 1983-84, where the gross turnover was enhanced. The petitioner argued that the reassessment based on an audit report was impermissible and illegal. The Revenue contended that the reassessment was upheld by the appellate and revisional authorities, and the petitioner did not raise the issue of the audit report before them. The court held that the petitioner cannot challenge the reassessment proceedings at this stage, as the orders affirming the reassessment have become final. The plea regarding the audit report was not raised earlier and cannot be entertained now.

2. The petitioner also raised the issue of limitation, claiming that the reassessment proceedings were time-barred. The court noted that the revisional order upholding the reassessment was not communicated to the assessing authority, and the petitioner only produced a copy of the order later. As per the proviso to section 24 of the Bihar Finance Act, reassessment proceedings should be completed within two years from the communication of the order passed in appeal or revision. Since the revisional order was not communicated within the stipulated time, the plea of limitation was dismissed.

3. The court emphasized that the petitioner suppressed material facts by not disclosing the revision filed before the Commercial Taxes Tribunal and its dismissal. Such suppression disentitled the petitioner from seeking relief under article 226 of the Constitution. The court held that the petitioner should have raised objections before the assessing authority instead of directly approaching the court. It was highlighted that statutory remedies should be exhausted before resorting to article 226 petitions. The court dismissed the writ petition as frivolous and upheld the reassessment proceedings.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition challenging the reassessment proceedings, ruling that the petitioner failed to raise objections at the appropriate stages and suppressed material facts. The court emphasized the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking relief under article 226 of the Constitution.