2001 (4) TMI 893 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of assessment and reassessment orders due to lack of proper notice.
2. Jurisdiction of the assessing authority and the right to agitate the point of limitation.
3. Applicability of the doctrine of "ejusdem generis" and the right acquired by the appellant.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addressed the validity of assessment and reassessment orders due to the absence of proper notice, leading to the conclusion that the orders were passed ex parte without giving the petitioner an opportunity to participate in the assessment proceedings. The court quashed the impugned orders and directed the assessing officer to conduct a proper assessment de novo in accordance with the law after providing the petitioner with an opportunity. The court emphasized the importance of ensuring that the petitioner's rights were not infringed upon due to lack of notice, highlighting the need for fairness and adherence to procedural requirements in assessment proceedings.

2. The issue of jurisdiction of the assessing authority and the right to agitate the point of limitation was extensively discussed in the judgment. The appellant's counsel argued that by using the term "de novo" and setting a deadline for completing the assessment proceedings, the petitioner would be deprived of the opportunity to challenge the point of limitation. The court agreed with this argument, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi, which emphasized the importance of serving notices within the prescribed period as a condition precedent to exercising jurisdiction. The court concluded that the assessing authority should not be granted jurisdiction that could impede the appellant's right to contest the point of limitation, and therefore, certain directions in the order were deemed improper and needed to be quashed in the interest of justice.

3. The judgment further delved into the applicability of the doctrine of "ejusdem generis" and the rights acquired by the appellant due to inactivity on the part of the department. The court highlighted that the appellant should be brought back to the stage where he stood before the notices were issued, allowing him the opportunity to legally contest the point of limitation. Emphasizing the appellant's right to agitate such points and the assessing authority's obligation to decide in accordance with the law, the judgment clarified that the assessing authority could consider initiating proceedings if permitted by law, while ensuring the appellant's rights were protected throughout the process.