2007 (9) TMI 589 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether the first respondent being a quasi-judicial authority ought to have issued a notice to the petitioner to produce the accounts? . Whether the first respondent has failed to issue summons under sections 54 and 54A of the Act to the respective dealers to cross-check the sale transactions and payment of sales by the sellers of the assessee? Held that - As stated though one of the directors appeared in person, he had failed to utilise the opportunity of personal hearing and therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to say that the assessing authority has failed to comply with the directions of the appellate authority. Merely because, the assessing officer had contacted the assessee over phone, no motive can be attributed without any specific allegations. Statute provides an appeal remedy under section 31 of the TNGST Act. The fact that is disputed in these writ petitions is in respect of goods purchased, the sellers had already paid tax and the goods suffered tax at their hands and there is no question of law to be decided. In the light of the discussion,thus of the view that the directions of the appellate authority have been properly complied with by the assessing officer and the petitioner has not made out any strong grounds. The impugned orders do not warrant any interference. The writ petitions are dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to revised orders of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer for assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99.
2. Retention of regular books of account by enforcement wing officials.
3. Best of judgment assessment order passed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer.
4. Failure to issue statutory notice and summons under sections 54 and 54A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act.
5. Compliance with appellate authority's directions.
6. Alleged failure of the petitioner to produce necessary documents/accounts.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Challenge to Revised Orders:
The petitioner challenged the revised orders of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer for the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99. The petitioner argued that the orders were passed without proper verification of accounts and compliance with the appellate authority's directions.

2. Retention of Regular Books of Account:
The petitioner claimed that the enforcement wing officials retained their regular books of account and other records, which hindered their ability to represent their case effectively before the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer. Despite repeated requests, the records were not returned, affecting the finalization of the assessment proceedings.

3. Best of Judgment Assessment Order:
The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer passed a best of judgment assessment order on June 30, 2000, due to the non-production of records by the petitioner. The petitioner contended that they were willing to produce the available purchase invoices and other records but were not given the opportunity.

4. Failure to Issue Statutory Notice and Summons:
The petitioner argued that the assessing officer, being a quasi-judicial authority, should have issued a statutory notice to the petitioner to produce the accounts and summons under sections 54 and 54A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act to the respective dealers to cross-check the sale transactions and payment of sales tax. The absence of such procedures was claimed to be contrary to the principles of natural justice.

5. Compliance with Appellate Authority's Directions:
The appellate authority had twice remanded the matter to the assessing officer with specific directions to verify the transactions and issue cross-check references to the respective assessing officers of the sellers. The petitioner argued that the assessing officer failed to comply with these directions and instead insisted on affidavits from the sellers, which was not acceptable.

6. Alleged Failure of the Petitioner to Produce Necessary Documents/Accounts:
The records revealed that the petitioner had failed to produce the necessary documents/accounts to correlate with the D7 records recovered during the inspection. Despite opportunities and notices, the petitioner did not furnish the required details, leading to the confirmation of the assessment proposals by the assessing officer.

Conclusion:
The court found that the assessing officer had complied with the appellate authority's directions and provided sufficient opportunities to the petitioner to produce the necessary documents. The petitioner failed to utilize these opportunities and did not provide the required details for verification. The court held that the impugned orders did not warrant any interference and dismissed the writ petitions, concluding that the petitioner had not made out any strong grounds for challenging the assessment orders. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions were also dismissed.