2007 (1) TMI 512 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and validity of the reassessment orders.
2. Jurisdiction and power of the appellate authority.
3. Availability and exhaustion of alternative remedies.

Summary:

1. Legality and Validity of the Reassessment Orders:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, challenged the reassessment orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes and the consequential assessment order by the Superintendent of Taxes. The petitioner argued that he maintained proper books of account and submitted necessary returns. However, due to non-filing of returns for the assessment year 1993-94, he was summarily assessed u/s 17(5) of the Act. The petitioner's appeal against this summary assessment was allowed, and the appellate authority directed a fresh assessment. Despite producing all relevant documents, the petitioner was reassessed for multiple years u/s 17(4) of the Act. The petitioner contended that the reassessment was based on audit objections and was done without giving him an opportunity of being heard, which he claimed was beyond the jurisdiction and competence of the respondents.

2. Jurisdiction and Power of the Appellate Authority:
The appellate authority set aside the reassessment orders for 1993-94 and 1994-95 but directed reassessment for the years 1995-96, 1996-97, and 1997-98 on a pro rata basis considering the entire bid money. The petitioner argued that since no appeals were preferred against the orders for 1995-96, 1996-97, and 1997-98, the appellate authority could not have directed reassessment for these years. The respondents justified the reassessment based on new information and audit objections, asserting that the original assessments did not bar subsequent reassessment.

3. Availability and Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies:
The court emphasized that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of preferring appeals against the impugned orders of assessment. The petitioner had previously approached the appellate authority but chose to invoke the writ jurisdiction without exhausting the departmental remedy. The court cited precedents, including the principle that the writ jurisdiction should not be a substitute for statutory appeals and that the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate alternative remedy unless a strong case is made out.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner should have availed the alternative remedy of appeal. The court noted that the petitioner could still approach the appellate forum and seek condonation of delay, considering the interim protection provided during the writ proceedings. The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.