2002 (12) TMI 576 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment orders passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner
2. Period of limitation for completion of assessment
3. Consideration of objections raised by the assessee
4. Validity of assessment orders
5. Direction of remand by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner

Issue 1: Assessment Orders Passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner

The revision petitions were filed against the order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, which remanded the matters to the assessing authority for fresh assessment orders. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner directed issuing a fresh notice to the appellants and considering their objections before passing new assessment orders.

Issue 2: Period of Limitation for Completion of Assessment

The key contention was whether the assessment orders dated June 22, 1998, were barred by limitation as they were passed beyond six years. The revision petitioner argued that assessments beyond six years from the end of the relevant quarter are illegal. However, the Special Government Pleader contended that the assessment was within a reasonable time and not barred by limitation, especially considering the period of stay granted by the High Court and Supreme Court.

Issue 3: Consideration of Objections Raised by the Assessee

The revision petitioner raised objections regarding the timeliness of the assessment orders and argued that the assessing officer did not consider their objections. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner remanded the matter for fresh disposal, emphasizing the importance of giving a reasonable opportunity to the revision petitioner.

Issue 4: Validity of Assessment Orders

The revision petitioner challenged the validity of the assessment orders, citing issues with the period of limitation and the consideration of objections. The assessing authority overruled the objections, leading to the appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, who found that while the assessment was within the limitation period, reasonable opportunity was not provided to the assessee.

Issue 5: Direction of Remand by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner

The Appellate Deputy Commissioner's decision to remand the case to the Entertainment Tax Officer instead of nullifying the order was questioned. The revision petitioner contended that the remand was not justified, but the Appellate Deputy Commissioner held that the period covered by the stay orders granted by the courts should be excluded, and the assessment orders were not barred by limitation. Ultimately, all revision petitions were dismissed, upholding the Appellate Deputy Commissioner's order.

This detailed analysis covers the various legal issues involved in the judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the arguments presented and the conclusions reached by the court.