1998 (8) TMI 576 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the assessing officer can initiate proceedings for a part of the year and later for the whole year without notice?
2. Whether the assessing officer is required to communicate the reasons for initiating part assessment proceedings under the proviso to rule 28-A?

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The petitioner contended that the assessing officer cannot initiate proceedings for a part of the year and subsequently for the entire year without notice. However, the court held that under the Orissa Sales Tax Act and relevant rules, the assessing authority has the discretion to assess tax for the entire year even after deciding to assess for a particular period. The court emphasized that the annual return must be filed, and tax assessment can be based on this annual return. The court clarified that while the proviso to rule 28-A may be utilized in certain situations, it does not prevent the assessing authority from conducting an annual assessment. Therefore, the argument that once a particular period is chosen for assessment, the assessing officer cannot assess for the entire year was deemed baseless.

Issue 2:
Regarding the requirement to communicate the reasons for initiating part assessment proceedings under the proviso to rule 28-A, the court noted that the petitioner was informed that they would be allowed to know the reasons during the assessment proceedings. The court highlighted that as a quasi-judicial authority, the Sales Tax Officer is obligated to provide copies of the reasons if requested by the assessee. While the court did not explicitly state whether the reasons must be communicated under the proviso to rule 28-A, it emphasized that in this case, the reasons were to be disclosed during the assessment hearing. The court concluded that certified copies of the reasons should be provided to the assessee, given the Sales Tax Officer's agreement to reveal the reasons.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the petition, vacated the stay order, and directed the assessing officer to allow sufficient time for the assessee to present their accounts. The judgment was delivered by S.N. Phukan, C.J., and C.R. Pal, J., concurring with the decision.