1998 (7) TMI 659 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenging notice to review and assessment orders for multiple years, lack of relevant particulars in the notice to review, absence of reasonable opportunity of being heard before passing the impugned orders.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed writ petitions challenging the notice to review and assessment orders for various years. The key contentions raised were regarding the vagueness of the notice to review, lack of relevant particulars, absence of a reasonable opportunity of being heard before passing the impugned orders. The notice lacked necessary information, making it impossible for the petitioner to provide an effective reply. The notice was issued several years after the assessment orders, further complicating the situation.

The provisions of Section 47 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, and Rule 32 of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983 were crucial in this case. Section 47 allows for the review of orders if there is a mistake apparent from the record, with the requirement of providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Rule mandates recording reasons for review and sets limitations on the timing of such reviews. The proviso to Section 47 emphasizes the necessity of giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, including a notice of the case to be met and an opportunity to explain.

The judgment highlighted that a notice to review should contain relevant information to enable the assessee to file an effective reply. It was emphasized that the notice is not an idle ritual but serves the purpose of informing the assessee of the case to be met. The vague allegations in the notice and the lack of specific details rendered it inadequate for the petitioner to respond effectively. The judgment rejected the notion that the petitioner should have speculated the grounds for the notice.

Furthermore, the judgment criticized the short notice period given to the petitioner to respond, highlighting a violation of the principle of natural justice. The petitioner's request for additional time and relevant information was unreasonably rejected by the assessing officer. The absence of a notice before the order of review for a particular assessment year was also deemed illegal and without jurisdiction.

In conclusion, the writ petitions were allowed, quashing the impugned notice and orders. The respondents were granted the liberty to issue a fresh notice in compliance with the law and to pass appropriate orders after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.