2004 (6) TMI 592 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the assessment order dated October 18, 2002.
2. Applicability of the doctrine of merger.
3. Alleged violation of principles of natural justice.
4. Jurisdiction and authority of the first respondent.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Assessment Order Dated October 18, 2002:
The writ petitioner, a public limited company engaged in the excavation and export of minerals, challenged the assessment order passed by the first respondent, Commercial Tax Officer, on October 18, 2002. The petitioner argued that this order could not be sustained as it was the subject matter of a previous writ petition (W.P. No. 22434 of 1999), which was allowed on December 27, 1999. The first respondent, however, contended that the relief sought by the petitioner in the previous writ petition was only concerning the reassessed turnover of Rs. 11,76,29,000 and not the original assessment. The court found that the original assessment dated September 6, 1995, was not set aside by the previous judicial verdict, and thus, the impugned order confirming the turnovers reported by the petitioner and accepted in the original assessment was valid.

2. Applicability of the Doctrine of Merger:
The petitioner contended that the original assessment of 1995 had merged with the subsequent assessment, which was quashed in W.P. No. 22434 of 1999, and thus, the first respondent had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. The court, however, noted that the doctrine of merger was not specifically pleaded by the petitioner and that the original assessment was left untouched by the prior judicial verdict. The court cited several precedents, including Kunhayyammed v. State of Kerala, to explain that the doctrine of merger applies when a lesser order is absorbed by a higher order, which was not the case here. The court concluded that the doctrine of merger could not be stretched to apply to the present assessment and that the impugned order was not contrary to the prior order.

3. Alleged Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner argued that the impugned order was in violation of the principles of natural justice as there was neither a show cause notice nor a valid demand made by the first respondent. The court, however, found that the petitioner was aware of all the facts and had not raised any specific ground of non-issuance of show cause notice in the pleadings. The court also observed that the petitioner had not substantiated how the principles of natural justice were violated. Thus, the court did not find any merit in this contention.

4. Jurisdiction and Authority of the First Respondent:
The petitioner contended that the first respondent, being a quasi-judicial authority, had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order without following due process. The court, however, found that the first respondent had acted within his jurisdiction as the original assessment was not set aside by the previous judicial verdict. The court noted that the first respondent had passed the impugned order to confirm the turnovers reported by the petitioner and accepted in the original assessment, which did not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. The court concluded that there was no illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned order.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no valid reasons to interfere with the impugned order. The court held that the original assessment was left untouched by the prior judicial verdict, the doctrine of merger did not apply, there was no violation of principles of natural justice, and the first respondent had acted within his jurisdiction. The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merits, with no costs awarded.