1998 (2) TMI 563 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of notice issued under section 12(8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act.
2. Defects in the notice issued under section 12(8) of the Act.
3. Violation of principles of natural justice in transferring the file between assessing officers.
4. Departmental bias in passing assessment orders.
5. Application of mind in passing assessment orders.
6. Jurisdiction of the High Court under article 226 in tax matters.

Analysis:
The High Court of Orissa disposed of five writ petitions filed by the Paradeep Port Trust challenging a notice issued under section 12(8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act and assessment orders for the years 1990-91 to 1994-95. The issues raised included the validity of the notice, defects in the notice, violation of natural justice in transferring the file, departmental bias in assessment orders, and lack of application of mind in passing the orders.

The Revenue argued that the High Court should not interfere in tax matters unless the order was without jurisdiction. The court referred to previous decisions, including Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, emphasizing the availability of alternative remedies through appeals before challenging an assessment order. The court highlighted that the Act provides a complete machinery for challenging assessments.

The court considered arguments regarding the notice issued under section 12(8) of the Act. It was contended that the notice was defective due to non-disclosure of reasons and lack of application of mind. The court examined the notice and found that relevant reasons were disclosed, and non-disclosure to the assessee was not necessary. The court cited previous decisions to support this stance.

Regarding the transfer of the file between assessing officers, the court noted that the petitioner participated in the assessment proceedings without raising objections. The court emphasized that objections raised for the first time during the rejoinder were not admissible. The court held that the power of delegation under the Act was broad, and the transfer was administrative, with prior approval obtained.

In conclusion, the court held that the writ petitions were not maintainable, and the petitioner should approach the appellate forum. The court granted 15 days to file appeals and directed a stay on coercive action upon payment of 30% of the assessed amount. The court also mentioned a previous order regarding the deposit for stay. The writ petitions were disposed of with no costs, and both judges concurred with the decision.