2001 (9) TMI 1119 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order passed by revisional authority under Delhi Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act for assessment year 1994-95.

Analysis:
The writ petition challenged the order passed by the revisional authority under the Delhi Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1994-95. The petitioner, a dealer, was assessed with extra demands under both Acts, including interest. The major part of the demand was due to non-production of necessary declaration forms. The assessments were completed ex parte as the petitioner did not appear on the specified date. The petitioner argued that the assessments were completed without proper notice. The revisional authority found that the notice was not properly served as per the rules, and therefore, the matter was examined on its merits. The authority held that the production of forms for the first time before the revisional authority could not be permitted without justification for not furnishing them before the assessing officer.

The petitioner contended that there was a gross violation of natural justice as there was no proof of notice service for the last date of appearance, and the revisional authority should not have upheld the assessment. On the other hand, the Revenue argued that even if there was no notice service, the revisional authority was not obligated to accept the declaration forms without sufficient cause for not producing them earlier. The authority noted that the declaration forms were not produced even before the stay application was dealt with.

The High Court found that there was a factual finding of non-service of notice for the last date of hearing, and therefore, the observation of the revisional authority about the forms not being produced was not justified. The Court held that if there was no notice for the last date, the question of non-production of forms did not arise. The Court emphasized that the assessee could produce forms even on the last date of hearing, and only if they were not produced even then and later submitted at the appellate/revisional stage, a justifiable reason would be required for their non-production at the assessment stage. Consequently, the Court quashed the order passed by the revisional authority and remitted the matter back to the assessing officer for a fresh examination, directing the petitioner to appear with relevant documents on a specified date.

In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of with the direction for a fresh examination by the assessing officer, emphasizing the importance of producing necessary documents in a timely manner during assessments to avoid unnecessary delays in the process.