2006 (7) TMI 584 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of reassessment orders under section 44 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969.
2. Alleged suppression of material facts by the petitioner.
3. Jurisdiction of the respondent to issue reassessment notices.
4. Alleged influence of superior officers on the respondent's decision to reassess.
5. Adherence to principles of natural justice and procedural requirements.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Reassessment Orders:
The petitioner argued that the reassessment orders under section 44 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, were without jurisdiction, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu. The court found no substance in this argument, holding that the reassessment was justified due to the petitioner's failure to disclose material facts during the original assessment. The court emphasized that reassessment is permissible in cases of fraud, collusion, misrepresentation, or suppression of material facts, which applied here as the petitioner had not disclosed the provisional assessment orders or the appeals filed against them.

2. Alleged Suppression of Material Facts:
The court noted that the petitioner had not informed the assessing officer about the provisional assessment orders, the appeals filed, or the part payment made as a condition for entertaining the appeals. This non-disclosure was deemed significant, as it would have influenced the assessing officer's decision during the regular assessment. The court concluded that the petitioner had suppressed material facts, justifying the reassessment.

3. Jurisdiction of the Respondent:
The petitioner contended that the reassessment notices were issued at the behest of superior officers, which would invalidate the reassessment orders. The court rejected this argument, stating that the respondent had independently formed an opinion that reassessment was necessary due to the suppression of facts. The communication with the Commissioner of Sales Tax was for guidance on whether to proceed under section 44 or section 67, not a directive to reassess.

4. Influence of Superior Officers:
The court found no evidence that the respondent was influenced by superior officers. The decision to reassess was made independently by the respondent, based on the suppression of material facts by the petitioner. The court concluded that the reassessment orders were not issued at the behest of superior officers and were therefore valid.

5. Adherence to Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner argued that the reassessment orders were invalid as the respondent did not decide the objections to the reassessment notices by a speaking order. The court noted that this argument was not pressed by the petitioner's counsel after reviewing the respondent's affidavits and supporting documents. The court did not find any procedural irregularities that would invalidate the reassessment orders.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed all four petitions, finding no merit in the arguments presented by the petitioner. The court emphasized that the reassessment orders were justified due to the suppression of material facts and were not influenced by superior officers. The court also noted that the petitioner could file appeals against the reassessment orders within four weeks, and the respondent would not resist applications for condonation of delay. The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs.