2004 (12) TMI 650 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of reassessment under Central Sales Tax Act for the year 1999-2000.
2. Compliance with principles of natural justice in the reassessment process.
3. Availability of statutory remedy by way of appeal.

Issue 1: Validity of reassessment under Central Sales Tax Act for the year 1999-2000:
The petitioner, a registered dealer, challenged a reassessment order raising a demand of Rs. 29,86,607 for the year 1999-2000 under rule 10 of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules, 1957. The petitioner contended that the reassessment was based on reports not furnished to them, leading to a violation of natural justice. The respondent argued that the necessary reports were indeed provided, and the petitioner had the opportunity to respond. The court noted that the Sales Tax Officer had issued notices for reassessment based on reports indicating diversion of goods meant for export sales. It was established that the petitioner had knowledge of the reassessment for the relevant period, and the material forming the basis of reassessment was made available to them. Therefore, the contention of lack of information was deemed misconceived.

Issue 2: Compliance with principles of natural justice in the reassessment process:
The petitioner argued that the reassessment order was made without providing them with essential reports, constituting a breach of natural justice. However, the court found that the Fraud Case Report and relevant statements were indeed shared with the petitioner, ensuring that the material forming the basis of reassessment was brought to their notice. The court referred to previous decisions emphasizing the need to inform the dealer of materials used against them, which was deemed satisfied in this case. Consequently, the court concluded that there was no violation of natural justice in the reassessment process.

Issue 3: Availability of statutory remedy by way of appeal:
The petitioner had directly approached the court under Article 226 of the Constitution for relief, bypassing the statutory remedy of appeal. The court acknowledged that the petitioner should have availed the statutory remedy by filing an appeal. Despite this, the court granted the petitioner one month to file an appeal with an application for condonation of delay before the appropriate appellate authority. The court directed that during this period, the demand raised in the reassessment order would not be recovered from the petitioner, allowing them to seek a stay from the first appellate authority. The original reassessment order was to be returned to the petitioner for the appeal process.

In conclusion, the High Court of Orissa disposed of the writ petition, finding no violation of natural justice and directing the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal within the specified timeframe.