2006 (9) TMI 500 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order based on lack of opportunity to produce purchase list, reliance on clarification by Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, violation of principles of natural justice by not providing opportunity to furnish documents.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the assessment order dated July 4, 2006, claiming that there was a request for time to produce the purchase list, which was not granted. The petitioner also relied on a clarification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in 1999, alleging non-compliance. The High Court heard the Special Government Pleader who argued that the objections were filed by the dealer and considered during assessment. The Government Pleader contended that the petitioner should have pursued the statutory remedy of appeal instead of directly approaching the court. The court noted that there was no evidence of a specific request to produce the purchase list, and the objections were indeed considered. The court emphasized that the assessing authority has the discretion to deal with matters independently and the petitioner could challenge the assessment order through the statutory appeal process.

The court addressed the petitioner's claim of violation of natural justice by not providing an opportunity to furnish documents. It was observed that there was no record of such a request being made, leading to the dismissal of this contention. The court highlighted that the assessing authority has the right to independently handle the matter, and if the assessee is dissatisfied, they can appeal the decision. The court referenced a Supreme Court decision emphasizing that the High Court should not interfere with the assessment process, as the assessing authority has the jurisdiction to conduct assessments as deemed appropriate.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner had not exhausted the statutory appeal remedy before approaching the court. The court found no merit in the petition and ordered the return of the original assessment order to enable the petitioner to pursue the appeal remedy. The judgment emphasized the importance of following the statutory appeal process and not bypassing it to seek redress directly from the court.