9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (4) TMI 678 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxSummary assessment - Revision petition dismissed - Held that - The dismissal order was passed only on March 11, 1998. There is nothing to show that the petitioner was duly informed about adjourning the date of hearing of the revision petitions till March 11, 1998. Thus the revision petitions were dismissed improperly. In the light of the above considerations, the impugned orders are hereby quashed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the concerned authority shall take appropriate steps for assessment of the petitioner in respect of the said three assessment years afresh in accordance with law.
Issues involved:
Challenge to summary assessment order, refusal to cancel the summary assessment, dismissal of revision petitions, refusal to restore revision petitions. Analysis: The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, challenged a consolidated ex parte assessment order made by the Superintendent of Taxes. The petitioner filed a petition for cancellation of the assessment order, which was refused by the assessing authority. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Taxes dismissed the revision petitions for default, leading to the petitioner filing civil rules to quash the assessment order and related decisions. The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without considering their application for adjournment due to the death of their Accountant, violating principles of natural justice. The court referred to the case law emphasizing the importance of natural justice in tax assessments, stating that the opportunity to be heard is a valuable right and safeguard against arbitrary assessments. It highlighted that the opportunity must be real and reasonable, and prayers for further time or explanations should be considered judiciously. The court found that the assessing authority did not consider the petitioner's adjournment application, leading to an improper assessment order. Regarding the dismissal of the revision petitions, the court noted discrepancies in communication and adjournment of the hearing date, concluding that the dismissal was improper. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned orders and directed the concerned authority to conduct a fresh assessment for the relevant years in accordance with the law. The petitioner was instructed to appear before the Superintendent of Taxes for assessment, with no formal notice required. The civil rules were disposed of with no order as to costs.
|
